Sweden nuke closure wouldn't hit supply-Vattenfall
Date: 30-May-02
Country: SWEDEN
"In the Nordics we have an overcapacity of energy," Vattenfall's Lars G. Josefsson told a news conference late this week.
"But on a very, very cold winter day there is a risk of capacity shortage," he said, adding that the risk was estimated at 10 hours in 10 years and that a closure of Barseback might add another hour.
The capacity problem could be solved by consumers agreeing to switch off electric heating at periods of peak demand to reduce the strain on the electricity system, which would be far cheaper than to build new capacity, he said.
"The most costly solution you can have is to build a couple of new gas turbines, which would cost about 300 million Swedish crowns ($30.48 million)," he said, adding: "But that is a brute-force solution. It is a stupid solution."
One of Barseback's two reactors closed in 1999, with the second reactor scheduled to shut by end-2003 at the latest as part of a programme to replace Sweden's nuclear energy with renewable sources such as wind power, solar energy and bio-fuel.
NUKE-FREE SWEDEN UNREALISTIC
Although Josefsson found no cause for worry if Barseback was closed down in 2003, he said that the plan to swap nuclear energy with renewables was unrealistic as natural gas offered the only alternative in terms of costs and availability.
"The choice is between gas and nuclear energy" Josefsson said.
Sweden produces around 150 terawatt hours of electricity a year, with nuclear energy accounting for about half of total production and hydropower making up the other half.
Sweden decided in 1980 to replace nuclear power with renewables, but parliament scrapped a 2010 deadline in 1997 as it became clear that replacing nuclear generation would be difficult to meet.
Industry and Energy Minister Bjorn Rosengren told Reuters on Monday that gas was ruled out as a main substitute to nuclear energy as it would increase Sweden's emissions of carbon dioxide, widely seen as a major contributor to global warming.