Debate about nucleous power in Sweden

Nedanstående innehåll är skapat av Mimers Brunns besökare. Kommentera arbete

Sweden vs. Nucleus power.

In Sweden we have 4 nuclear-stations: Oskarshamn (3 reactors), Barsebäck (2 reactors), Ringhals (4 reactors) and Forsmark (3 reactors).
In 1972 the first nuclear station were taken in use. But in 1997 the Swedish government decided that the two reactors of Barsebäck should be closed down. The first one on July the 1st 1998 and the second one on July the 1st in 2001. But the second reactor will close incase that there’ll be any other way to support the parts that’s supported with energy from Barsebäck and if the use of energy decreases.

In a public vote in 1980 the Swedish people chose to use the nuclear stations we had at this time (12 reactors) until they were out of use, counted to 2005.
I
n 1997 the nucleus energy production were 46,1% of the total use in Sweden but the hydraulic power were 47,1% of the use.
In 1990 there were more than 300 reactors in the world and only in US there were over 80 of them.

Arguments against:

 The nucleus isn’t totally safe and since 1957 there have been 10 major accidents and the most wellknown is of course the one in Chernobyl in 1986. The Chernobyl-reactor still doesn’t work and there’s still animals dying and malformated children are born. The other 9 were:
 Windscale, UK in 1957
 Ural, USSR in 1958
 Detroit, US in 1968
 Colorado, US in 1969
 New York, US in 1972
 Browns Ferry, US in 1975
 Windscale, UK in 1976
 Harrisburg, USA in 1979
 Windscale, UK in 1981
 In an international point of view we should respect the thoughts of our neighbours. Denmark and Norway i.e. don’t have any nuclear stations. And these nations can’t do something about it and they’ll also be the victims of a disaster.
 We’re not in the need of that much energy and it’s up to every persons responsibility to decrease the use of energy.
 The rests of the nuclear stations are buried in the bedrock and this is a typical capitalistic point of view for the future. This is just a way of get rid of the present problems. It’s bad for the future. After 50 000 years about 75% of the radioactivity is vanished but it’s still mortal.

Arguments for:

 The nuclear stations of Sweden are, compared to other countries, very safe. If the station would leak there would be enough security to prevent an environmental disaster. Only if the ”härdsmälta” will happen the security won’t be enough good.
 We shouldn’t import energy made out of coal from the Eastern Europe, as it’s very bad for the envi...