Sweden's nuclear power review seriously flawed for not looking at demand scenarios: academic

The review carried out for the Swedish government on building new nuclear power is seriously flawed and cannot be relied on because it did not take into account alternate demand scenarios, according to Arne Kaijser, professor emeritus at the Royal Institute of Technology.

Speaking at an Oct. 22 seminar in Stockholm, Kaijser said his main objection to the review was that it looked at only one scenario concerning the future need for electricity and assumed that demand would increase. Both the reviewers and the government are assuming that the projected need for more electricity, especially in northern Sweden, will materialize.

Projects are underway in northern Sweden to manufacture steel without fossil fuels, which would require a great deal of electricity. But Kaijser -- a professor of the history of technology who specializes in researching energy systems -- said it is possible that it will be more economic to manufacture fossil-free steel in another country.

If reactors are built to help provide electricity to “a handful” of Swedish steel companies, but their projected demand does not materialize “there will be a huge electricity surplus,” he told the seminar, which was organized by the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences, known as IVA.

“That is such a serious shortcoming that the review has lost credibility,” he said.

Bjorn Carlen, who was a member of the review group, told the seminar that the group took as its starting point that the Swedish government wants more nuclear power, rather than doing a broader study of various scenarios. The purpose of the review group was to make suggestions to the government on how to finance and share risk for new nuclear plant construction.

The Swedish government is putting in place a sweeping program to provide incentives to companies to build new reactors and is also working on legal changes needed for new units to be built.

The government wants 2.5 GW of installed nuclear capacity by 2030 and the equivalent of 10 large units by 2045.

At a press briefing Oct. 23, minister for energy, business and industry Ebba Busch said that the government has estimates from various agencies showing that the need for electricity will increase. Busch also said that while electricity consumption currently lags behind production, she is not concerned about over-production of electricity. She added that she sees the projects in northern Sweden going ahead successfully.

Kaijser said that rather than encouraging private investment, the Swedish state should consider the French model of state ownership of nuclear reactors, so that if costs become too high for building new units the state can put the brakes on construction.

As part of its mandate, the review group had the option to look at the state directly owning reactors, but Carlen said it chose not to. He added that he personally does not think the state would be the best equipped to own reactors, but did not elaborate.

While the Swedish state does not own reactors directly, it is the sole owner of Vattenfall, the power company that does. Vattenfall operates on commercial principles, although the state has at times tried to intervene against commercial decisions such as shutting down reactors ahead of their technical lifetimes.

Kaijser said Vattenfall would be perfectly positioned to allow the state to have direct nuclear ownership.

Sweden should wait to see if SMRs take off

In addition, he said that while small modular reactors are being developed now, “we have to ask will that trend change and what will happen? Will they really take off in 10 years?”

Kaijser said that instead of pushing ahead with new nuclear power, the Swedish government should wait about 10 years and see what develops with SMRs and also learn from other countries’ experiences in building large units.

He added that this would also give Sweden more time to educate the nuclear engineers needed for a new nuclear program. Because reactors have not been built in Sweden since the 1980s, Kaijser said that “everybody who built reactors is either retired or dead.”