For the first time in five decades, Sweden is to build new nuclear power plants, undoubtedly a milestone in the nation’s energy transition.
Back in the 1980s, Sweden voted to phase out nuclear power in a referendum. Now, the Swedish parliament has approved a plan to build several small modular reactors (SMRs).
Sweden’s U-turn on nuclear energy is symbolic of the worldwide debate on the energy transition — how to balance ideals with reality, and to juggle between environmental aspirations, industrial demands, energy self-sufficiency and international security.
There are two main reasons behind Sweden’s reversal on nuclear policy. Power demand is nearly certain to double in the next two decades, with green steel, biofuel, mass-produced hydrogen energy and other emerging industries on the rise.
These industries are key to Sweden’s economic competitiveness and Europe’s path to a net zero economy. Without a stable, low-carbon and sustainable power source, Sweden would fail to attract business and jobs might go to other nations.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine has uprooted the European conception of energy security. As Russian gas supplies ceased overnight, European nations painfully learned that energy self-sufficiency is not an abstract concept, but a security guarantee on which a nation’s survival hinges.
Sweden’s investment in nuclear energy is no betrayal of its green promises, but a practical decision to stabilize the energy system.
There are strategic concerns as to why Sweden prefers SMRs over traditional large nuclear power plants. SMRs take up less space, and they can be built quickly and expanded gradually. In addition, managing and maintaining SMRs is relatively simple.
Since Sweden has a low population and limited land, SMRs reduce the risk of investing in nuclear energy. To some extent, SMRs are the compromise between achieving distributed generation and base-load power.
The Swedish parliament in May passed legislation empowering the government to finance nuclear developers and alleviate the financial burden energy companies would incur building new power plants.
Sweden plans to have half of the new reactors on the grid by 2035 and to finish all 10 SMRs by 2045. This is a textbook example of a policy shift, wherein the state outlines the framework and businesses profess willingness to invest based on the expected stable growth.
The latest nuclear renaissance is not without resistance. Multiple issues remain without a genuine solution and there would be more difficulties that need to be overcome. Nevertheless, Sweden’s nuclear policies are about to be implemented.
Nuclear waste disposal remains contentious within Swedish society. The lack of standardized international regulations for the design of SMRs could create oversight and safety risks. Green industries are concerned about the diversion of resources, leading to weakened momentum for investments in renewable energy. Without proper supervision, renewed legislation and conversations with the public, Sweden’s nuclear turnover could be reduced to an unfinished project.
Sweden’s nuclear U-turn is a compromise between energy realism and environmental ideals. It shows that energy transition requires coordination between multiple solutions.
Faced with emerging energy-intensive industries, geopolitical tensions and climate goals, nuclear power is considered part of the solution.
All decisions are informed by a range of options, each with their own thorny issues. Sweden has made its choice and all nations should formulate their own plans, which would be a crucial test for policymakers.
When green energy cannot satisfy the short-term needs of industry, could nuclear energy provide them with stable low-carbon power?
Europeans are looking to Sweden’s policies as an example. With successful execution, Sweden could become a paradigm for unilateral energy transition, not to mention a positive case for Europe’s low-carbon economy and energy resilience.
Sweden’s challenge is shared by all nations pursuing a net zero transition.
Edwin Yang is an associate professor at National Taiwan Normal University and chairman of the Central Taiwan Association of University Professors.
Translated by Cayce Pan
The White House’s decision to take a 9.9 percent stake in Intel Corp is looking like very shrewd business indeed. Since the government bought in at US$20.47 a share last August, the US chipmaker’s surging stock price has delivered the US a US$43 billion return. One of the reasons the investment has so far proved so sound is that the White House has made sure of it. According to The Wall Street Journal, Howard personally pushed deals on Intel’s behalf with some of the most lucrative clients imaginable. They include Nvidia Corp, the company at the heart of the AI
KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun’s (鄭麗文) recent visit to Beijing and her upcoming visit to Washington will serve as a high-level test of her diplomatic mettle. In Beijing, Cheng was received with symbolic gestures, a warm reception, and high-level access. In Washington, she will receive far less pomp and far sharper questions about the KMT’s vision for the future of Taiwan. Her challenge will be to persuade Washington that the KMT’s engagement with China can coexist with strong deterrence. Cheng’s April 7-12 visit to mainland China coincided with an intense period of conflict in Iran. Despite the strategic significance of Cheng’s trip,
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent the vast Asian chemicals industry into a tailspin. Deprived of the likes of Qatari natural gas and Saudi Arabian oil, the region’s fertilizer and plastics plants are slowing production or even shutting down. Everywhere except China, that is. In petrochemicals, China is unique. As well as a traditional industry that uses oil and gas as feedstock, it has parallel output that relies on its abundant domestic coal. Unsurprisingly, India and other regional powers want to copy and paste the Chinese method. This would not be easy — or climate friendly. The
Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto says he knows how to fix the problems facing Indonesia. Yet his economic mismanagement and authoritarian tendencies are steering the nation toward a familiar mix of currency instability and political chaos. The world’s fourth-most populous nation risks reversing the hard-won democratic and business reforms that came after the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997. At that time, the rupiah collapsed and the political upheaval that followed forced former president Haji Mohamed Suharto from power. Prabowo’s administration is ignoring similar warning signs. That disconnect was apparent in a national address on Wednesday, when Prabowo projected the swagger that has
RSS