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
On March 22, 2023, at the close of their meeting in Moscow, media microphones were allowed to record Chinese Communist Party (CCP) dictator Xi Jinping (習近平) telling Russia’s dictator Vladimir Putin, “Right now there are changes — the likes of which we haven’t seen for 100 years — and we are the ones driving these changes together.” Widely read as Xi’s oath to create a China-Russia-dominated world order, it can be considered a high point for the China-Russia-Iran-North Korea (CRINK) informal alliance, which also included the dictatorships of Venezuela and Cuba. China enables and assists Russia’s war against Ukraine and North Korea’s
After thousands of Taiwanese fans poured into the Tokyo Dome to cheer for Taiwan’s national team in the World Baseball Classic’s (WBC) Pool C games, an image of food and drink waste left at the stadium said to have been left by Taiwanese fans began spreading on social media. The image sparked wide debate, only later to be revealed as an artificially generated image. The image caption claimed that “Taiwanese left trash everywhere after watching the game in Tokyo Dome,” and said that one of the “three bad habits” of Taiwanese is littering. However, a reporter from a Japanese media outlet
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
RSS