By Michael Valenti

The catchprase "harnessing the peaceful uses of the atom" was used in the 1950s to draw a distinction between the deadliest weapons ever built and a new source of energy. Ironically, the end of the Cold War finds the public less concerned with nuclear stockpiles, at least in the hands of the larger powers, than with atomic energy's civilian career as a generator of electricity.

Radiation examinations in the reactor hall at Sweden's Barsebäck power plant may be a thing of the past if the plant is shut down as planned in 1998

Nowhere has the public debate over nuclear power plants been more severely contested than Sweden, where a public advisory referendum to phase out the country's 12 nuclear reactors by 2010—passed nearly two decades ago, after the accident at Three Mile Island in Harrisburg, Pa.—has galvanized antinuclear feelings in the Scandinavian country. The nonbinding resolution stipulated that Sweden's reactors would be shut down at a later date, taking into consideration the country's welfare and economic development as well as power supply and demand. The economic and environmental considerations, which included protecting jobs in energy-intensive industries and reducing the country's reliance on imported fuels, enabled the government to keep postponing the phaseout, even with the safety fears fanned by the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in the Soviet Union.

In February 1997, however, a tripartite coalition made up of the ruling Social Democratic Party, Center Party, and Left Party voted to shut down the Unit 1 and 2 reactors at the privately run Barsebäck power station in Kävlinge, located at the tip of southern Sweden about 40 kilometers east of Copenhagen. The shutdown was set for 1998, with another as-yet-undetermined reactor to be shut down by 2001.

This decision has sharply divided the Swedish government, and has prompted sharp opposition from industrial and trade-union groups. While Minister of Trade and Industry Anders Sundsträm characterized the decommissioning agreement as "a very responsible and good agreement," Lars Tobisson, the parliamentary leader of the conservative Moderates (the largest party opposing the agreement), said the decision was "economically and environmentally insane." This disagreement has set the stage for a drama that could hold clues to nuclear power's future worldwide, according to William Nordhaus, the A. Whitney Griswold Professor of Economics at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., and a former member of the President's Council of Economic Advisers.

"Although Sweden is a small country producing but a tiny fraction of the world's energy and output, it plays a large role on the stage of world opinion," wrote Nordhaus in his 1997 book The Swedish Nuclear Dilemma: Energy and the Environment. "The world is watching Sweden's redesign of the welfare state, and it will also pay close attention to how Sweden manages its nuclear power industry."

Swedish unions charge that 10,000 employees in the nuclear industry, like these technicians inspecting a steam separator and core spray systems, will lose their jobs if the country phases out atomic power. Others say jobs could be created if Sweden takes the lead in developing alternative energy sources.

Taking Sweden's nuclear power plants off-line is not without precedent in Europe. In November 1987, Italians voted to stop the expansion of the country's nuclear program. In June 1990, the Italian Parliament approved dismantling the republic's atomic power plants, which had been closed since the Chernobyl meltdown.

Italy had only three operating nuclear plants, however; Latina, Trino Vecellese, and Caorso generated 153, 260, and 860 megawatts, respectively. This represented 4.6 percent of Italy's total electrical generation in 1986. In stark contrast, Sweden currently derives nearly half of its electrical needs from its nuclear plants, which have a capacity of 10,000 megawatts. A large portion of Swedish power is used by its electricity-intensive industries, such as pulp and paper processing, mining, steel forging, and chemical formulation. Per capita consumption of electricity in Sweden is 16,500 kilowatt-hours per year, among the highest in the world.

Most of Sweden's nonnuclear electricity is provided by hydropower, but this source has reached its limit because environmental legislation to protect the country's rivers and lakes has halted dam construction since the 1970s. Because Sweden would have to import all the oil, coal, or natural gas needed for fossil-fuel plants, the Parliament intends to replace the nuclear reactors taken off-line with biomass plants (which convert wastes such as agricultural residues into fuel gas), wind power, and hydroelectric plants.

In his book, Nordhaus estimated that pulling the plug on Sweden's dozen nuclear reactors from 2000 through 2010 will cost about $15 billion (in 1995 dollars), amounting to $2,100 per Swedish citizen. This cost represents nearly 5 percent of Sweden's gross domestic product (GDP), which will be an estimated $340 billion by 2010. "A nuclear phaseout will hardly bankrupt Sweden," Nordhaus wrote, "but it represents a loss in real income and wealth that is substantial by any account."

That cost will likely go up, in Nordhaus's opinion, in light of another Swedish environmental policy—resulting from the 1992 U.N. summit on the environment in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil—that limits carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels. Combined with the nuclear phaseout, the total cost will be $109 billion, one-third of Sweden's annual GDP, because of the emissions of the biomass plants.

"Sweden will be hard-pressed to keep its international commitments to stabilize carbon dioxide emissions even with its nuclear industry producing full tilt," he wrote. "If it phases out nuclear power, then it will be virtually impossible for the country to keep its climate-change commitments." The Energy Commission appointed by the Swedish Parliament in 1994 to study the proposed deactivation agrees: In its report, submitted in 1995, the commission stated that the replacement of nuclear reactors with carbon dioxide-free energy sources would double the cost of the phaseout.

Perhaps the most divisive bone of contention in the debate over removing nuclear power from the Swedish energy mix is its impact on jobs. In an editorial that appeared in the Feb. 7 issue of the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet, Sundström wrote: "The reconfiguration of our energy system holds great potential for growth. If Swedish companies can be the first to develop the energy technologies of the future, many export possibilities will be opened. Investment in research and development in these areas (i.e., alternative energy sources and a broader array of more energy-efficient products) would be to the advantage of Swedish industry."

The Swedish Federation of Industries believes otherwise, noting that about 10,000 jobs in the nuclear power production, fuel fabrication, and service areas would be directly impacted by the planned nuclear phaseout. In addition, about 100,000 jobs in such energy-intensive industries as pulp and paper and steel could also be endangered by taking the reactors off-line. Sweden's powerful Confederation of Trade Unions, which is closely connected to the Social Democrats, also believes that the reactors should continue to operate to provide low-cost electricity. The victory of either side of Sweden's nuclear dilemma will resonate far beyond the Nordic kingdom.


Return to Index