Sweden's Social Democrats and their junior coalition partner, the Green Party, have agreed upon plans that would see Sweden's nuclear power phased out and the eventual introduction of 100% renewable energy.
The leader of the Social Democrats, Stefan Lofven, has admitted that nuclear power will be necessary for "the foreseeable future" but the Green Party have said they wish to see more reactors shut down within four years.
Critics of the plan refer to the demand of the country compared to the plans laid out by the parties. The director general of the World Nuclear Association, Agneta Rising, cited the power supply for electricity currently hinges approximately 50% from nuclear power and 50% from hydroelectricity. To move away from that, Rising says, "would be a bad example to the rest of the world."
According to statistics, approximately 40% of Sweden's overall power comes from nuclear energy. The two parties are calling for support to be given to offshore windfarms and solar power to relieve the country of its need for nuclear power.
Lofven said in a statement: "Sweden has very good potential to expand renewable energy through our good access to water, wind and forests. In time, Sweden will have an energy system with 100% renewable energy."
Cedrec's take
This is an interesting story, due to the fact nuclear power is relatively clean. They do have the imposing chimneys and the gushes of white cloud emitted which look suspect, but it is harmless steam. As of yet, no evidence has been found that nuclear power produces emissions and pollutions in the same manner of coal etc.
Nuclear power is unstable, however. Despite rigorous regulations, sometimes catastrophes cannot be avoided, such as Fukushima. Couple the dangers of nuclear energy, and the links to illnesses and fatalities in exposure, with the waste produced, and the issue of where it can be disposed of, nuclear power does little to endear itself to the public.
77,000 tonnes of radioactive waste was to be dumped at a site in Nevada, US, and this waste was estimated to remain radioactive, and therefore a major threat to the health and people and the environment, for up to 10,000 years.
However, nuclear energy is a cleaner alternative to more traditional sources. Whilst the Green Party wish to see a shut down over four years, it may be more prudent in terms of supplying cleaner energy at a reliable rate, to prolong the closures. It is all well and good to say the 40% can be replaced with solar and wind energy, however, these require building time, acquiring land and the ability to return the energy that is expected.
Sweden are very advanced in their campaign for renewable energy, and our commendations go out to them. Hopefully they can achieve 100% renewable energy, and be a shining example to other leading economies, but we can hardly judge them if they cannot achieve this within four or five years. Almost 100% of their energy comes from greener sources, regardless of them being totally renewable, so Sweden are several steps ahead of the UK for reaching set targets for emissions.
