Correspondence with a Swedish Nuclear Scientist: Sweden's Nuclear Future.

[NNadir]

As part of my on going autodidactic exercise involve with the physics and chemistry of nuclear reactors, the actinides and the fission products, I try to keep abreast of the latest developments in nuclear power technology. Now that the world, facing a crisis, is embarking on a new nuclear era, I feel, as a person who understands nuclear technology - having considered it for some decades - I feel I can help by being aware of the "latest and greatest" and by doing my best to counteract some of the mysticism and misapprehension that surrounds nuclear technology - misapprehension that has had tragic effects in places like Iraq, and may still yet have tragic effects in Iran.

Recently, as part of my continuing effort at self education, I came across the slides for a course entitled "Transmutation in Light Water Reactors."

http://www.neutron.kth.se/courses/transmutation/LWRtransmutation.pdf

Now, if you're into that sort of thing, the slides are technically interesting, covering some of the physics changes that attend the use of plutonium and other transuranium actinides in light water reactors. What is equally interesting however is not so much what is being said as where it's being said.

The course is offered in Sweden, a the university where fully 1/3 of Swedish engineers are trained, KTH. What? Sweden? Transmutation of nuclear materials, which necessarily involves advanced fuel cycles - recycling - only makes sense in a country where nuclear energy is likely to be used for centuries.

Officially of course, Sweden is committed to abandoning nuclear energy - a decision that dates to the 1980's.

I have previously noted in other posts, that the Swedish "phase out" decision is contradicted by the recent decisions to uprate two of the reactors at Ringhals.

Recently Sweden has announced its intention to phase out oil. I believe that the two "phase outs" are inherently contradictory. Although there are exceptions, few countries can phase out fossil fuels without nuclear power. In fact, the only major industrial nation that previously managed to phase out fossil fuel use in electrical generation is France.

Among first world nations (i.e. wealthy nations) of the top 5 performers in producing low carbon intensity, a measure of the amount of carbon dioxide released to the environment per unit of GDP, 4 produce a significant portion of the electrical energy via nuclear power. The units are metric tons of carbon dioxide produced per $1000 US in 2000 US dollars. The top 5 rich nations in terms of this performance, as of 2003, were Switzerland 0.17 MT carbon dioxide per $1000 US (2000), Sweden, 0.22 MT carbon dioxide per $1000 US (2000), Japan 0.25 MT carbon dioxide per $1000 US (2000), Norway 0.26 MT carbon dioxide per $1000 US (2000) and France 0.30 MT carbon dioxide per $1000 US (2000).

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1gco2.xls

Two of these nations are in the top three producers of nuclear energy in the world, Japan and France. The percentage of nuclear generated electricity in each of the top performers in excellent carbon intensity are Switzerland, 40% nuclear; Sweden, 45% nuclear; Japan, 30% nuclear; Norway 0% nuclear; and France, 77% nuclear.

Note that 3 of the top 5 performers, Switzerland, Sweden, and Norway, also enjoy significant hydroelectric capacity - subject to the outcome of global climate change's effect on glaciers.

My figures for the percentage of power produced by nuclear means comes from www.world-nuclear.org.

I was intrigued and was inspired to write Janne Wallenius, apparently a fine young man, who is the professor teaching the course in question. With his permission, I am reproducing our brief exchange here:

Dear {NNadir},

I am glad to note your interest in Swedish nuclear power. Presently,
the public opinion is highly in favor for keeping the present
nuclear capacity. Especially so since the price of electricity rose
during winter by a factor of two compared to normal winters. Even
though the price is determined on the nordic deregulated market where
nuclear is less important than in Sweden, the marginal cost is of
course dependent on the availability of reserve power, which
decreased with the shutdown of Barsebäck 1 and 2.

Thus, the political parties previously agreeing on starting the phase
out (social democrats, centrists and leftists) now are stating that
no more shutdown will be made until the technical lifetime of the
remaining nuclear power stations has been reached.

One party (the liberals) are in favor of building new power plants,
an idea which is supported by 30 % of the population at the moment
(up from 10 just a year ago).

So, I think the tide has turned for nuclear in Sweden.

Sincerely - Janne Wallenius


10 maj 2006 kl. 01.40 skrev :

> Dear Dr. Wallenius:
>
>
> I am an American with a strong interest, albeit not professional
> interest, in the chemistry and physics of actinides. I recently
> came across, on the internet, slides related to your seminar on
> some issues in light water reactor physics relating to the
> transmutation of actinides. Regretfully I can little indulge my
> hobby in nuclear science, but I wondered whether or not you, given
> your perspective could spare the time to comment on the status of
> the Swedish nuclear program.
>
>
> My environmental view is that nuclear energy, although often
> maligned publicly in many countries, is actually a key technology
> for ensuring human survival in the era of global climate change.
> From a risk/benefit standpoint, even with setbacks like the events
> of Chernobyl, I believe that nuclear energy has the best
> environmental profile of readily available technologies. I believe
> that the ExternE work in Europe confirms this analysis.
>
>
> I know that Sweden has a public policy of phasing out nuclear
> power, but I also know that the Ringhals reactors recently were
> uprated, a decision that seems to be inconsistent with the “phase
> out” policy. I wonder if you could spare a few minutes to comment
> on the prospects for nuclear energy in Sweden. Are attitudes
> changing there? Is Sweden really going to phase out nuclear power
> in your view? This doesn’t seem like the right thing to do, from
> my perspective. Are there any prospects for a nuclear energy
> revival in Sweden?
>
>
> I would very much appreciate any remarks, however brief, that you
> can offer in this regard. Thanks in advance for your response.
>
>
>
> Best regards,

{NNadir}
>

What I find encouraging is that public opinion in favor of new nuclear plants has tripled in the last year. While the majority of Swedes favor the continued of existing nuclear power plants, that the that the subject of new nuclear power - a position endorsed by liberals - is certainly encouraging.

Again, Sweden, I note, currently produces about 50% of its electrical energy by nuclear means.

Of course, I have no objection any path taken by any nation that eliminates fossil fuels. I only insist that nations do not simply substitute nonsensical talk for action. Certainly no resident of the United States is in any position to lecture anyone. Our national carbon intensity is a disgusting 0.58MT carbon dioxide per $1000 US (2000). We are barbarians.

I have no doubt that ultimately sense will prevail over propaganda, and that nuclear energy will enjoy a revival in Sweden, just as it is doing elsewhere.

I would like again to thank the fine (and brilliant) young scientist, Janne Wallenius for his kind permission to reproduce our correspondence.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. So do we have to invade Sweden now, too?

After all, that technology could be used to build nookular weapons.

[Taxloss]

2. Fascinating post! Thank you.

Amazing (and pertinent) fact about Sweden (which may be apocryphal, I have no confirmation for it): When Sweden electrified its rail network in the 1950s, it was about to decommission its fleet of steam trains when planners proposed that there might come a time when the country's electricity-generating capacity was knocked out. So they mothballed the entire steam fleet, and it is still maintained in working condition.

A great story, if it's true.

[NNadir]

3. Thanks for that interesting tale.

If it's true they've maintained their steam locomotives, one hopes they will do the same with the Barseback nuclear stations.

They have offset any action on the actual decommissioning putting it many years off. I'm sure that the reason is to have it available for restart in an emergency. The decision to close Barseback was very controversial in Sweden. Many people opposed the shut down.

http://www.ringhals.se/index.asp?ItemID=1291

From where I sit, shutting down a reactor that was performing spectacularly is well, stupid. In a time of global climate change it is almost unconscionable.

Fortunately Finland is building new large nuclear capacity, which will offset the loss.

[jpak]

4. 70% of Swedes oppose new nuclear plants

Yup - the tide is turning...

[dcfirefighter]

5. Swedish support for nuclear power tripled in a year

From 10% to 30% support. I contrast this with the spectacular percentage, and irrelevant nominal growth in solar power over the same time.

I would also point out that while 100% - 30% DOES equal 70%, not supporting does not necessarily indicate opposition. I don't know what poll the scientist was referring to, but it's quite possible that the numbers were 30% support, 20% oppose, 50% undecided/no opinion.

[Dead_Parrot]

13. Referring to post #8...

It seems that only 23% are actually in the phase out/questionable box - the rest support it, in one way or another...

[Dead_Parrot]

6. Thanks, NNadir...

An informative post, as ever.

(Although I'm still wrestling with the slides :) )

[NNadir]

7. Now that would have been a fun course to take, no? n/t

[Dead_Parrot]

12. If I could stand the implosion of my cerebellum, yeah... :)

[NNadir]

8. What the Swedes think of nuclear power: A more detailed poll.

Further to the subject of what Dr. Wallenius had to say, I looked for a Swedish Poll that would elucidate in more detail the exact numbers.

Here is a poll that asked the following questions

What is your personal view of the use of nuclear power in Sweden?
Should we...

phase out nuclear power production in accordance with the Government's decision to close reactors, although the surveillance inspectorates do not regard it as necessary for safety reasons?
use nuclear power until the present reactors do need to be closed on safety or cost grounds?
continue with nuclear power production and replace the existing ones when they have reached the ends of their lives?
develop nuclear power production and build new and more reactors if necessary?
doubtful, don't know.

Note that two of the options, "develop" and "replace" (written as "continue") call for new reactors.

Here are the results:



Thus it would seem that 39%, not 30% of Swedes, would agree to new nuclear reactors in Sweden. It would seem that attitudes are changing.

Only 20% of Swedes support the 1980's phaseout decision, which by the way, was never supported either by a vote or by political polling - it was a bone thrown to form a coalition with some luddite parties.

Here are the results of a poll from Swedes relating to their environmental objectives:

The parliament has made decisions on different environmental objectives.
Which of the following objectives is most important to you?

phase out nuclear power?
protect the remaining undeveloped rivers against hydro-electric power?
prevent increase of emissions of greenhouse gases?
doubtful, don't know?

Here are the results:



Two things are happening in Sweden, as I see it: Global Climate change is reaching political prominence, and they have actually acted on the silly phaseout, at the perfectly good Barseback 2 reactor, and found - what a surprise - that their electrical rates surged.

I think they are also worried about what is going to happen to their rivers.

We now see that only 20% of Swedes support the (stupid) phase out.

The polling data is from this Swedish site:
http://www.analys.se/engsite/engopin.html

[bananas]

9. "autodidactic exercise"? You have no formal training in physics?

That explains a lot.

[NNadir]

10. Clearly you have misinterpreted what I have said about my training.

I am a nuclear engineering autodidact.

I am a chemist by professional training. To do what I do for a living I needed formal physics training, and I got it. Moreover, unlike many people, I didn't take finishing the course work as evidence that I could immediately could forget everything I learned.

It is true that the f-elements are only loosely covered in most but not all, graduate and undergraduate chemistry courses. But a formal training is nothing more than an opportunity to learn how to read, nothing more. Anyone who has not taught himself or herself beyond his or her training is probably not worth a shit.

I doubt very much that you, having read the poor quality of your posts, have any concept of what any of this involves.

In any case, the point is irrelevant. If you can challenge anything I have written here on actinide chemistry or nuclear reactor physics (the latter in which I am indeed self-taught) then try it. It is true that I have never taken a formal course in nuclear engineering. On the other hand, I can correspond with people who have teach high level courses in nuclear engineering, and who have done original research in these areas. I've sat next to Glenn Seaborg; I've seen him lecture.

You? Do you know who Glenn Seaborg is?

Maybe you think you can point to a physics error I've made in any of my posts here at DU? Go ahead, do it, Bananas. Let's see your best physics shot, but I insist it be accompanied by references both to my post and scientific (not the www.ratical.org website) references. Come on big guy, give it your best shot. Let's see your qualifications to judge me and what I know.

I have seen no evidence whatsoever that you have even the remotest appreciation of neutron diffusion theory or even the remotest sense of any of a thousand other aspects of nuclear technology at all. In fact, I can't recall a single post of yours that was anything other than a negative statement. You wouldn't know the value of eta for the fast fission of Am-241 from a Popsicle stick and still, for reasons that mystify the universe, you seem to assume that you can have an opinion on nuclear technology that has validity. But you can't. Because to do so, you would need to know some science. And you don't.

For what elements in the periodic table do transition energies require relativistic corrections in Hartree-Fock calculations, big guy? What is a Dirac-Fock calculation anyway? What results from Dirac-Slater treatment lead to the experimental results for the electronic configuration of Fermium? Tell us, big guy. How about some comment on the stability of the Cf⁺² ion in aqueous solution? What pH is required? What sort of tetrakiscatecholate complexes would you expect Americium to form? Do they teach that stuff in your (such as it is) school? Would you have a remote clue on what courses you should take to find this stuff out? Does anyone teach such courses? Where? Did you ever take a chemistry or physics course anywhere? Please tell us all about it, big guy.

No doubt you regard yourself as highly educated and of course all of your posts are highly redolent of what you, in fact, know.

Let's ask some easier questions, that can be answered at the level of googling. Did you ever find anyone anywhere at anytime who has ever been injured by the storage of spent fuel? Have you read about some way to store fossil fuel waste for eternity? Have you figured out a cheap and simple way to make abandoned coal pits stop leaching acid. Did you and your friends ever find that big solar exajoule? in the sky?

Now, I certainly think it is a dubious exercise to point out what role autodidacts have played in the history of science, since it will fly over your head (if not fry your little head) for sure, but, throwing caution to the wind, here are some people who taught themselves various forms of high level science for which they had no training: Michael Faraday. Antoine Lavoisier and his wife. Sir Issac Newton. Archimedes. Emile du Chatelet. Ramanujan. John Dalton (although when he was 12 he was already a teacher). Thomas Edison. Paul Crutzen. Leonardo Da Vinci. Godfrey Hounsfield. George Green. Gottfried Leibnitz.

And you? What do you teach yourself?

Nothing?

I thought so.

I'm sure that you, Bananas (and let's offer you some praise for at least getting your DU name right) feel infinitely qualified to judge these people's worth, because you feel infinitely qualified to comment on many other things about which you know nothing.

...What I show you do not know...

Clearly you know nothing about actinide chemistry, or for that matter, general chemistry, or nuclear physics or general physics. Knowing that involves science, whereas all of your posts recite the same mysticism - "I hate nuclear power. It's bad. Because I say so, and it says so at www.ratical.org.)" What you learn comes from seems to come entirely from googling and apparently, not to very sophisticated websites either. My distinct impression is that what in your case passes for knowledge apparently consists of googling your way once a day to the aforementioned website and (even better) the Greenpeace site for spoiled middle class children.

I suspect that none of the things required to judge the merits and demerits of nuclear technology have any meaning to you. Like the Jesus advocates who lecture all about the non-reality of evolution, you know what you know because you know it, and that's it. We're all supposed to impressed, except we're not.

If there is one historical post from you anywhere on this site that indicates that you have ever cracked open a scientific journal, produce it so we may judge its merits.

Until then, I suggest we just consider the source.

[Dead_Parrot]

11. Meaning what?

NNadir has taken the time and effort to educate himself about nuclear physics. I have some formal training in the subject, albeit in the field of astrophysics and stellar nucleosynthesis - somewhat removed from fission energy - and to be honest, I wish I was as knowledgable on fission as he is.

Perhaps you are saying that you are formally trained in nuclear fission? And that that people not formally trained in a subject matter should be banned from posting on DU?

Is Hatrack formally trained in oceanography?
Is Jpak a formally trained energy consultant?
Is Phantom Power a formally trained meteorologist?

Perhaps you'd like to tell us what your degree is in.