Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement
[1] 2 Next »

Monday, March 06, 2006

New Nukes in Europe

Europeans are rethinking the merits of nuclear energy and whether to build new plants, says energy executive Lars Josefsson.

By Peter Fairley

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

Widespread public concern in Europe over climate change resulting from fossil fuel emissions, and over the increasing uncertainty of energy supplies from places like Russia has a number of European countries taking a second look at nuclear energy. Most notably, Finland has begun construction of Europe's first new nuclear power plant in over a decade.

Indeed, a number of European countries that had rejected nuclear power are rethinking their strategies. In Germany, which relies heavily on Russian oil and gas, a planned phase-out of the nuclear reactors that supply one-third of the nation's electricity is becoming increasingly controversial. Meanwhile, in Sweden, a debate is raging over the wisdom of that country's plans to phase out nuclear power plants, after the costly closure of a second plant last summer. (Compensating the plant's owners cost Swedish taxpayers over one billion euros.) And nuclear power is officially back on the planning board in the United Kingdom, which had foresworn new nuclear reactors.

Paris-based Technology Review contributing writer Peter Fairley recently discussed the thinking about nuclear power in Europe with Lars Josefsson, CEO of Stockholm-based Vattenfall AB, a leading producer of electricity and operator of nine reactors in Sweden and Germany.

Technology Review: Finland is building a nuclear power plant, and France looks set to follow suit with one of its own. Do you expect other countries in Europe to join the trend?

Lars Josefsson: It's quite a process to decide to build new nuclear -- one that will take several years. But the fact that there is a trend shift in Europe is, to me, obvious. Take Britain. They are moving in that direction very clearly. And I think the replacement market [for aging plants] in Europe will be sizable. And you will see a lot of demand from Asia and probably from the U.S. as well. There is a real risk that the nuclear technology supply industry will become a bottleneck in the near future.

TR: Your firm is based in Sweden, where last November a poll found that 65 percent of those questioned were opposed to the premature closing of the country's nuclear reactors, which provide 45 percent of their electricity. Why does the Swedish public now want nuclear power to stay?

LJ: For ten years the polls have consistently shown that the Swedish population is pro-nuclear. I think our safety track record is convincing. It is also quite a long time now since the days of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Then you also have the climate-change issue, which has become the most serious environmental concern, as well as the question of energy security. I think all of these areas work together.

TR: Only two of Sweden's 12 reactors have shut down since the country adopted a nuclear phase-out policy in 1980. And it is clear now that the policy's 2010 target for completing the phase-out will come and go without further closures. Is the government, in effect, phasing out the phase-out?

LJ: The wording that the government uses is that we will close the other reactors only as we find replacement power. That is guarded wording.

[1] 2 Next »

Comments

  • Carbon exchange rates in the USA
    Guest (Vince) on 03/06/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    I can only get $1.60 per ton for mitigation of carbon on the US carbon exchange.  How does the German plant value it at $30?
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • And when the uranium runs out . . . .
      Guest (Geoff) on 03/06/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Switching to a finite resource (uranium) because another finite resource (coal and gas) has become scarce seems short-sighted.
      What happens when the Uranium runs out, as it ineviatably will?
      The only long-term solution is a renewable and/or inexhaustable power source (Solar, geothermal, wind, biomass, etc.). I know they aren't good enough yet, but we just have to make them work. uranium is nothing more than a distraction from the real work that needs to be done.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Uranium running out
        Guest (Wayne) on 03/07/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        Unfortunately, the breeder reactor will answer the shortfall for a few thousand years.  Say, around 10k!  Our energy needs will overwhelm our good sense on this matter.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • uranium reserves
          Guest (Tom) on 03/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
          Posts:
          1
          "Unfortunately, the breeder reactor will answer the shortfall for a few thousand years."

          How is that unfortunate?
          Btw, for example Finland is building more _traditional_ nuclear capacity and it seems that the breeder reactors are not economically feasible (yet at least).

          Here's an interesting read about uranium resources:

          http://upload.mcgill.ca/economics/981.pdf
          Rate this comment: 12345
Advertisement

Current Issue

Technology Review January/February 2009
Lifeline for Renewable Power
Without a radically expanded and smarter electrical grid, wind and solar will remain niche power sources.
•  Subscribe
Save 41%
•  Table of Contents
•  MIT News

Magazine Services

Career Resources

MIT Technology Insider

Stories and breaking news from inside MIT about the latest research, innovations, and startups--in a convenient monthly e-newsletter. Subscribe today
Advertisement

Follow us on Twitter

Twitter

Get Technology Review updates via the web, cellphone, or Instant Messager – Follow techreview on Twitter!

Advertisement

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
Advertisement
TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES
Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology