When I studied energy a few years back, we discussed the total energy produced in Sweden (energy, not electricity). The biggest pie chunk was the one that raised most interest among us would-be energy engineers. And we learned that this, fully one-third of all the energy produced (or more exactly, converted) in the country is simply dumped into the sea as hot water.
This is the water used to extract the extra heat from nuclear power stations (cooling water). It is not at all radioactive and it could be very easily be channelled into Sweden’s extensive district-heating grid. But no – this water is not even used to provide showers in the nuclear facility. Instead it is poured into the sea, possibly harming sea life and creating lovely clouds of expensive steam.
This is the result of a political decision back in the 1980s. With the accident at Three Mile island in 1979, the Swedes got all squirmy and put the future of nuclear power to a referendum. This was an interesting referendum as there were 3 options and all of them were “NO”, but slightly different kinds of NO. Anyway, the NO vote won and a moratorium was declared on developing nuclear power.
It sounds to me like a typical Swedish solution to a problem – present only one possible option to the people, and then ignore completely what they actually say. But this decision also meant that no products of nuclear power (such as free hot water) could be used for anything. And so this led to the Swedes, who are usually very smug about their environmental record, dumping 33% of the energy that they produce directly into the ocean.
But now everybody knows that this nuclear phase-out will not happen, at least not soon. And say what you will about nuclear power, but it seems to me that when you expose a population to the full risks of fission reactors, then it might be a good idea to also provide them with any advantages you can scrape together. But no – the Swedes are absorbing the full impact of having nuclear power but are not reaping all of the benefits, because of a rather large lack of balls on the part of their politicians.
There is essentially no danger from this water – the heat is transferred through several cycles and the fluids do not touch. This hot water could be used for domestic heating and cooling, the warming of greenhouses, fish farming, and finally for keeping roads free of ice and snow in the winter. Even generation of more electricity is possible using a low-temperature turbine cycle, such as an organic Rankine cycle.
And now the Finns are getting in ahead of the edgy Swedes in this area. They plan to build a nuclear reactor in Simo, 50 km from Sweden, and pipe the hot water across the border to the Swedish town of Haparanda, where it will be sold for a tidy profit.
The Swedes generate fully half of their electricity from nuclear power, and pretending that it can be replaced quickly is simply avoiding the problem. Or would the anti-nuclear hippies from the 70s prefer if Sweden just bought vastly more dirty coal-produced electricity from Poland to run their electric cars, juice-makers and massage chairs?
15 thoughts on “Swedish Nuclear Power”
Holy crap, we need to do something about that!
OMG! I did’t know that, for real? Not that I am doubting you, but where can I confirm that number (33%)?
[…] or rationality, Swedish nuclear power plants dump a lot of warm cooling water into the sea. In a revealing blog entry, Paddy K offers an estimate of just how much energy that cooling water […]
It would be good to raise awareness about this, sounds like most ppl are unaware of that fact. And yes, since you do have nuclear power in Sweden, there is absolutely no reason not to reap all the benefits! WHY don’t people know about this?
Translate this into Swedish and send it to the government!
Amazing. I had no idea.
Wow! Imagine all the radioactive coffee I could make with that!
Everybody: Well the 33% figure is one I learned in a lecture at KTH Stockholm. But, of course, the actual usable energy is not 33% – it depends on the water temperature and the uses you can find for it. Every thermal cycle needs to reject hot water to work.
But it is safe to say that up to a fifth of Sweden’s usable energy is dumped as hot water. And this is not good. Let’s farm some bloody fish and stop being reactionary anti-nuclear twits.
Hello again Paddy,
What is your opinion of the LHC ( The Large Hadroc Collider) due to be tested as from tomorrow somewhere deep underground on the France/Switzerland border?
Personally I’m very concerned, and I’m not the only one;
Lillan: To be honest, I would say the dangers from this thing are zero. Most people who are against it actually know no physics and are just following what the scare-mongers say. I mean, come on: black holes and ripping the fabric of space-time? It’s a big bloody magnet for Christ’s sake, not a Star Trek episode.
I’ll bet you a million dollars that this machine does NOT destroy the world.
Hahaha…easy to say. You know full well that whatever the outcome, your money is safe. However, on a more serious note the experiment is going to last for several weeks, so just because we may still be here tomorrow it doesn’t mean that we can breath easy.
[…] Paddy K has the lowdown on the politics and environmental impacts of Swedish nuclear energy. […]
Super web site: Will come back soon=)
[…] ons toch wel lichtelijk shockeerde, was wat we lazen op dit blogbericht. Om historische redenen dumpt men in Zweedse kerncentrales het warme koelwater na gebruik […]
[…] or rationality, Swedish nuclear power plants dump a lot of warm cooling water into the sea. Ina revealing blog entry, Paddy K offers an estimate of just how much energy that cooling water […]