Sweden is often cited as a model for good governance and stability and the history of nuclear power in that country is eventful and interesting. Sweden’s commercial nuclear power programme was implemented in two phases: six reactors were constructed in the 1970s and another six in the 1980s. In 1980, whilst the second tranche was still under construction, an advisory referendum was held in response to the accident at Three Mile Island. Primarily, this was a device to remove the issue from the forthcoming election. Three options were offered, all of which proposed the limiting of nuclear power in some way. After the election the parliament restricted the nuclear power programme to twelve reactors and decided that nuclear power should be phased out altogether by 2010. Since all the reactors were assumed to have a 25 year operating life, 2010 would not have represented an early shut down although it would rule out any lifetime extensions.

At the time of the referendum, nuclear power was contributing about 25% to electricity production with 60% from hydro and 15% from other sources (Fig. 1.4). In the next seven years demand for electricity went up by 50% and much of this increase was met by bringing the new nuclear plants into operation. Thus, since the late 1980s, most of Sweden’s electricity has been produced by roughly equal amounts of hydro and nuclear power (Fig. 1.4). Because hydro depends on the weather it can vary significantly from one year to the next and when there is a shortfall in supply the balance is met by nuclear. Given this long-standing situation, it was not surprising that, when a government commission was asked to review Sweden’s nuclear policy in 1994, it reported that, if the country was to

maintain its low levels of GHG emissions, a complete phase out of nuclear power by 2010 would not be possible. Nevertheless, one nuclear unit could be closed because at that stage there was an over-supply of electricity.

As a result, a compromise policy was hatched in 1997. An immediate start was to be made on the nuclear phase-out through the closure of the two Barseback reactors in 1998 and 2001 (commissioned 1975 and 1977 respectively). These were located only 25 km from Copenhagen and had been a source of tension between Denmark and Sweden. Due to a legal appeal by the plant’s owner and a re-negotiation there was a delay so that Unit 1 closed in 1999 followed by Unit 2 in 2005. By 2008, major investments by the utilities allowed most of the output lost by the closure to be recouped by uprating reactors at the other three sites.33 A less noticed feature of the new policy was the dropping of the 2010 deadline; now, the phasing out of nuclear power would only come about when it could be replaced by renewables. Since then renewables have failed to make a significant impact and, at the same time, Swedish public opinion has shown a steady increase in support for nuclear power since the low of 1986. Thus, in 2010 the percentage of people wanting to use nuclear power (as opposed to abolish it) had risen to 52%.34 A centre-right coalition government came into power in 2005 with an agreement between the parties that there would be no forced closures of NPPs for the next four years. In 2010 it reversed the phase-out policy and envisaged the construction of ten new reactors that will replace the existing ones when they come to be decommissioned in the 2020s. This policy was confirmed after the Fukushima accident35 but it is not difficult to imagine that it could change again if the next election brings in a more left-leaning government. Without doubt, Sweden’s progress in developing and implementing a permanent disposal solution for spent nuclear fuel has been of great assistance in achieving public acceptability.

Finally, it is notable that Sweden imposes a tax on nuclear capacity that currently stands at SEK 12 684 (€1400) per MW(th) per month. This raises a total of about €470 million per year for the government and represents an additional charge on nuclear electricity of about €7 per MWh(e).36