Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Stunning Reversal In Sweden re Nuclear

  1. Jun 10, 2016 #1

    anorlunda

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    http://www.thelocal.se/20160610/sweden-agrees-to-continue-nuclear-power

    In 1980, a national referendum in Sweden voted to abolish nuclear power. But they never did it. Only 1 of 11 nuclear plants was shut down.

    Now, in announcing a 100% renewable goal, the Swedish government 1) repealed a special tax on nuclear power, and 2) gave permission to build one-for-one replacements for the 10 operating reactors that are getting old.

    Sadly, Sweden's native supplier, ASEA ATOM (later called ABB ATOM), which built outstandingly good reactors ahead of schedule and under budget, was driven out of business in the meantime. Sweden will now have to try to reestablish a native supplier, or to import.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 11, 2016 #2

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    ABB sold ABB Atom to Westinghouse and became Westinghouse Electric Sweden, so they still exist. ABB was formed from a merger of Asea (Sweden) and Brown Boveri (Switzerland). Brown Boveri (BB Reaktor) also offered reactors, but they were not successful in Europe.

    Ringhals 2 (15x15) and Ringhals 3 & 4 (17x17) are Westinghouse PWR designs. Asea/ABB designed and manufactured BWRs. Both Westinghouse and Asea/ABB worked with Stal-Laval on their nuclear plants. Stal-Laval manufactured turbines and balance of plant components.

    ABB had purchased Combustion Engineering in 1990. BNFL briefly owned Westinghouse, which acquired ABB's nuclear business in 2000. In 2006, BNFL sold Westinghouse to Toshiba.

    Over the last 30 years, there has been consolidation in the nuclear energy industry for both suppliers and utilities. Before Vogtle 3&4 and Summer 2&3, no new reactors have been built in the US.

    In Europe, the only two new reactor orders are for Olkiluoto 3 and Flamanville 3, which are both AREVA EPRs, and both way over the original cost estimate.
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2016
  4. Jun 11, 2016 #3

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Inevitable if Swedish clean power share was to continue to increase instead of decline.
     
  5. Jun 11, 2016 #4

    anorlunda

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yes indeed, and that was just as true in 1980 when the anti-nuclear referendum passed. The lack of alternatives has been a bitter pill for Swedish anti-nuclear activists to swallow.

    In 1980, Sweden's electric generation was roughly 50-50 hydro-nuclear. That is an enviable mix. One could even call it a blessing.
     
  6. Jun 16, 2016 #5

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

  7. Jun 16, 2016 #6

    anorlunda

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The popular press report said that the 10 could be replaced. That implies retiring all the existing ones and building replacements. That could be a face saver to the opponents who insisted that the existing plants were always unsafe. It could also be yet another insincere promise by the politicians. I would not wager on any viable plant being replaced merely for the sake of political face saving.

    On the other hand, I think that the Sword of Damocles is definitely removed over the heads of those 10 existing units, and that is the real news.

    If I could wager, I would bet that in the year 2040 when Sweden pledges to be 100% renewable, that they will simply reclassify any remaining nukes as renewable. :smile: Sweden portrays itself as ideological, but most often it is pragmatic.
     
  8. Jun 16, 2016 #7

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    If I recall, the prior policy in Sweden was to let those remaining plants go end of life but not replace them, and not to close them early by some random near term date as per, say, German nuclear policy.
     
  9. Jun 16, 2016 #8

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Oskarshamn 2 was about to start a upgrade program, but that was terminated and the plant was shutdown. It is still down. But I was wondering if they will restart the unit.

    Oskarshamn 1 (currently operating)
    Code (Text):
    Timeline
    Construction Start     31 July 1966
    First Criticality      11 December 1970
    First Grid Connection  18 August 1971
    Commercial Operation    5 February 1972

    Specification
    Capacity Net          473 MWe
    Capacity Gross        492 MWe
    Capacity Thermal     1375 MWt
    Design Capacity       440 MWe
     
    Oskarshamn 2 (shutdown, but operable)
    Code (Text):

    Timeline
    Construction Start      31 August 1969
    First Criticality        5 March 1974
    First Grid Connection    1 October 1974
    Commercial Operation    31 December 1974

    Specification
    Capacity Net           638 MWe
    Capacity Gross         661 MWe
    Capacity Thermal      1800 MWt
    Design Capacity        580 MWe
     
    Oskarshamn 3 (currently operating)
    Code (Text):
    Timeline
    Construction Start      30 April 1980
    First Criticality       28 December 1984
    First Grid Connection    2 March 1985
    Commercial Operation    14 August 1985

    Specification
    Capacity Net          1400 MWe
    Capacity Gross        1450 MWe
    Capacity Thermal      3900 MWt
    Design Capacity       1050 MWe
    There are 3 BWRs at Forsmark, and 1 BWR and 3 PWRs at Ringhals.

    The Barsebäck units were permanently shutdown: Unit 1 on 29 November 1999 and Unit 2 on 30 May 2005

    Not only were many Swedes opposed to the plant, but the Danes were also, especially those in København.
     
  10. Jun 17, 2016 #9
    @anorlunda said
    The swedes are rather fascinating for changing their mind and being on both sides of seemingly inconsistent and totally opposing views.They did this in WW2 and their nuclear energy stuff is probably no different.
    Although this time it's good their not giving in on public fear but rather doing what's better in the long term.

    Also the plant foreclosures simply because there's public pressure is rather stupid , closing down a plant is not recycling an old car , it requires so much extra energy and resources spent and the plant could have worked fine until it's life expectancy ends for real.Nuclear energy is one of those fields were people should learn to listen to professionals instead of forming their own opinion from the cable news.
    But people fear everything they don't understand and know nothing about , much like death.
     
  11. Jun 17, 2016 #10

    anorlunda

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I don't know the answer about Oskarshamn 2' s upgrade. Since the political agreement is so new, perhaps even the owners don't know yet.

    The placement of Barsebäck was certainly impolitic. The Danes could see it on the horizon from København, yet they received none of the benefits of the power produced. If it had just been placed a few km up or down the coast, Danish opposition may have been less.

    I recently drove past a similar case. There is a paper mill in Ticonderoga NY on the shores of Lake Champlain. The prevailing winds blow almost all the smoke and smell from the plant across the lake to Vermont. Yet Vermont had zero say in the placement of that plant. Resentment runs deep. ( But Vermonters have never had trouble resenting NY. During the American Revolution, some Vermonters wanted to join the British side arguing that any enemy of NY must be a friend of theirs. :smile: )
     
  12. Jun 17, 2016 #11

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Here is an OKG summary of Oskarshamn 2.

    http://www.okg.se/en/About-OKG/Facilities/Oskarshamn-2/

    E.ON is a German energy company. A part of that is the former PreussenElektra.

    Wikipedia - PreussenElektra (Preußische Elektrizitäts AG) was a German electric company that existed from 1927 to 2000. From its founding until around 1970, it was owned (directly or indirectly) by the Republic of Prussia and the Federal Republic of Germany. From 1929 until 2000, it was a subsidiary of VEBA.

    With the German Electricity Agreement of August 22, 1990, "PreussenElektra, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bayernwerk&action=edit&redlink=1 [Broken], and RWE held joint responsibility for overhauling the antiquated, inefficient, and environmentally harmful electricity supply industry in East Germany. PreussenElektra and RWE held 35% each and Bayernwerk 30% of the holding company, which had as its subsidiaries Vereinigte Kraftwerks A.G. Peitz (lignite-power stations) and Verbundnetz Elektroenergie A.G. (the high tension network).

    At the beginning of 1991 these two companies were merged to form the company VEAG (Vereinigte Energiewerke AG). After the merger of VEBA, the parent company of PreussenElektra, and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=VIAG_(company)&action=edit&redlink=1 [Broken], the owner of Bayernwerk, in 2000, PreussenElektra merged with Bayernwerk to form E.ON Energie, a subsidiary of E.ON."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PreussenElektra
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PreussenElektra#Scandinavian_connections

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.ON
    E.ON Sverige AB, formerly known as Sydkraft, is Sweden's second largest utility company.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.ON_Sverige
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 8, 2017
  13. Jun 17, 2016 #12

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    10 years for a generator and transformer update? That should be 10 months on-site work. What, is the generator located inside the reactor vessel?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 8, 2017
  14. Jun 17, 2016 #13

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I believe the upgrades were done in stages. The Swedish units, like most European NPPs, run on annual cycles, so they do an outage over 20 to 30 days for refueling and repair. They try to minimize downtime. They would have to replace a generator, then turbines, and various other systems, such as instrumentation and control. I&C has changed dramatically during the last 4 decades, since some of these plants started.
     
  15. Jun 21, 2016 #14
    I was working the Barsebaek plant and was witness to an anti-nuke demonstration in the city of Malmo, Sweden. I asked a protester "Where will you get your electricity?" She answered "Oh, those are NUCLEAR PLANTS not ELECTRIC PLANTS!" So it goes...
     
  16. Jun 21, 2016 #15

    anorlunda

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    :smile: Funny story. But the protesting woman might have read the articles (I think in Ny Teknik or Dagens Industri) that accused the Swedish Government (under the direction of Hans Blix) of trying to covertly manufacture atomic bombs using the heavy water nuclear power plant at Marviken https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marviken#K.C3.A4rnkraftverket . To people who believed the accusation, "Nuke Plant" rather than "Power Plant" would have been the appropriate label. The Marviken heavy water BWR was abandoned before completion when analysis found that the void reactivity coefficient was positive in certain circumstances.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Stunning Reversal In Sweden re Nuclear
  1. Nuclear fusion (Replies: 5)

  2. Nuclear Core (Replies: 4)

  3. Nuclear energy (Replies: 8)

Loading...