Abstract
Over the years, written books, scientific papers, conducted parliamentary inquiries and public discussions have been published to describe and explain the Swedish nuclear power program. There is probably no other more thoroughly debated area. Still question marks are piling up. The report provides a broad illumination over the subject and fills in a number of explanations. No new unknown facts are presented, however, a number of factors are highlighted, whose importance has not received attention. One such factor is the well known link between a Swedish nuclear weapons program and the nuclear power program. By combining the information, especially from the last 15 years on nuclear weapons development with the nuclear power program, a new and largely unknown picture emerges. This issue is only superficially touched upon earlier. The ambition to develop Swedish nuclear weapons was the basis for all development until Sweden ratified the CTBT. The handling of the nuclear issue especially during the 1960s created a crisis of confidence which still affects the decisions and attitude toward nuclear power. The report finds it likely that the over-sized nuclear program was not the result of a forecast failure, but a deliberate effort by the power industry to get a
More>>
Citation Formats
Kaerrmarck, Urban.
Atomic energy - Bombs and nuclear power. Drivers and controversies during 65 years; Atomenergi - Bomber och kaernkraft. Drivkrafter och kontroverser under 65 aar.
Sweden: N. p.,
2010.
Web.
Kaerrmarck, Urban.
Atomic energy - Bombs and nuclear power. Drivers and controversies during 65 years; Atomenergi - Bomber och kaernkraft. Drivkrafter och kontroverser under 65 aar.
Sweden.
Kaerrmarck, Urban.
2010.
"Atomic energy - Bombs and nuclear power. Drivers and controversies during 65 years; Atomenergi - Bomber och kaernkraft. Drivkrafter och kontroverser under 65 aar."
Sweden.
@misc{etde_1004750,
title = {Atomic energy - Bombs and nuclear power. Drivers and controversies during 65 years; Atomenergi - Bomber och kaernkraft. Drivkrafter och kontroverser under 65 aar}
author = {Kaerrmarck, Urban}
abstractNote = {Over the years, written books, scientific papers, conducted parliamentary inquiries and public discussions have been published to describe and explain the Swedish nuclear power program. There is probably no other more thoroughly debated area. Still question marks are piling up. The report provides a broad illumination over the subject and fills in a number of explanations. No new unknown facts are presented, however, a number of factors are highlighted, whose importance has not received attention. One such factor is the well known link between a Swedish nuclear weapons program and the nuclear power program. By combining the information, especially from the last 15 years on nuclear weapons development with the nuclear power program, a new and largely unknown picture emerges. This issue is only superficially touched upon earlier. The ambition to develop Swedish nuclear weapons was the basis for all development until Sweden ratified the CTBT. The handling of the nuclear issue especially during the 1960s created a crisis of confidence which still affects the decisions and attitude toward nuclear power. The report finds it likely that the over-sized nuclear program was not the result of a forecast failure, but a deliberate effort by the power industry to get a hegemony in the heating sector by replacing oil with electricity. The report also shows that the only practical, working tool for an early phase-out of nuclear power was to financially compensate the plant owners. A massive increase of renewable electricity generation or a program for raising the energy use efficiency was not sufficient to compete with the reactors. However, seen in a longer perspective, renewable electricity can compete with nuclear power. With the current ambitious expansion rate, conditions are right for such a competition. Parliament's decision in June 2010 authorizing the replacement of the present 10 reactors does not necessarily mean that the nuclear debate is terminated}
place = {Sweden}
year = {2010}
month = {Oct}
}
title = {Atomic energy - Bombs and nuclear power. Drivers and controversies during 65 years; Atomenergi - Bomber och kaernkraft. Drivkrafter och kontroverser under 65 aar}
author = {Kaerrmarck, Urban}
abstractNote = {Over the years, written books, scientific papers, conducted parliamentary inquiries and public discussions have been published to describe and explain the Swedish nuclear power program. There is probably no other more thoroughly debated area. Still question marks are piling up. The report provides a broad illumination over the subject and fills in a number of explanations. No new unknown facts are presented, however, a number of factors are highlighted, whose importance has not received attention. One such factor is the well known link between a Swedish nuclear weapons program and the nuclear power program. By combining the information, especially from the last 15 years on nuclear weapons development with the nuclear power program, a new and largely unknown picture emerges. This issue is only superficially touched upon earlier. The ambition to develop Swedish nuclear weapons was the basis for all development until Sweden ratified the CTBT. The handling of the nuclear issue especially during the 1960s created a crisis of confidence which still affects the decisions and attitude toward nuclear power. The report finds it likely that the over-sized nuclear program was not the result of a forecast failure, but a deliberate effort by the power industry to get a hegemony in the heating sector by replacing oil with electricity. The report also shows that the only practical, working tool for an early phase-out of nuclear power was to financially compensate the plant owners. A massive increase of renewable electricity generation or a program for raising the energy use efficiency was not sufficient to compete with the reactors. However, seen in a longer perspective, renewable electricity can compete with nuclear power. With the current ambitious expansion rate, conditions are right for such a competition. Parliament's decision in June 2010 authorizing the replacement of the present 10 reactors does not necessarily mean that the nuclear debate is terminated}
place = {Sweden}
year = {2010}
month = {Oct}
}