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 Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS