Untitled-10 © 1975 Nature Publishing Group 284 Sweden's nuclear power game from Wendy Barnaby SWEDEN'S nuclear future has been de- cided-officiailly until 1985. The ruling Social Democrats' ene,rgy plan, put to Parliament last week and expected to be approved, provides for the construc- tion of nine reactors. With the four already in ope ration, Sweden will have thi,iteen reactors wi,th a total electrical generating capacity of about 9,500 MW by 1985 . This will be only two more than previously ·planned, but the in- crease is seen by critics as the thin end whose wedge will be an existing gov- ernment plan to build 24 reactors by 1990. Construction on ,that scale would make ,the Swedes the world's greatest per capita users of nuclear power. The plan is a pi-ece of po\i.tics worthy of Prime Minister Olof Palme's con- siderable skills. Forced last yea,r by pub- lic conce•m over the nuclea,r programme to postpone a decision on those plants not then under construction, he has with the present proposal g,iven the ap- pearance of ·responsible caution while allowing his government a reconsidera- tion in 1978 of the ways energy ,is to be provided for 1985-90. By 1978, he explained, the,re would be more know- ledge available on which to make a better-informed decision. By 1978, he could have added, the next parliamen- tary election will be safely out of the way with the emotional energy issue securely pegged for future considera- tion . On the face of it, nuclear power seems an obvious choice for Sweden . Although the country has no cheap uranium resources (.that is, uranium which can be mined for less than $10 a pound), it has almost half the non- communist world's known suppUes of uranium in the next price range-$10- 15 a pound . It has been estimated that the supplies of cheap uranium may be- come sca,rce in the mid-1980s, partly because of the eight-year ,time lapse between discovery and production of deposits. Unless exploration is stepped up, therefore, the more expensive uranium could come into demand at about ,the same time as ,the Swedes' suspended nuclear programme would have been-and perhaps will still be- well advanced. Sweden would expect to be a major exporter of reactoc fuel elements. But the nuclear issue has caused an extraordinarily vigorous pub- lic debate over ithe past year, focused mainly on the safety aspects and the disposa,l of nuclea,r waste . (In fact Swe- den neatly solves its radioactive waste problems by sending its reactor fuel elements to Windscale, England, for reproce,ssing.) More recently the social and security consequences of a nuclear decision have come in.to focus. Pro- nuclear groups have insisted that no rise in the standa,rd of living will be possible without large scale nuclear powe,r, and have pointed out the dan- gers of dependence on foreign energy sources. Anti-nuc-lea,r forces have res- ponded that the choice is not between increased growth and alternative energy sources: both are possible. The two new reactors proposed by the government are officially justified on ,the grounds that they, togeithe,r with increased hydroelectric power, will make up the extra 15 billion kWh of electricity necessary for a projected in- crease of 2 % a yea,r in energy con- sumption. Non-oil-fired power stations are being emphasised in an attempt to lessen the country's dependence on the Middle East. As the average annual in- crease in consumption over the 15 years until 1973 was 4.5 % , the new projec- tion wi.JI ce,rtainly test the efficacy of save-energy campaigns. H is hoped that, hy 1990, growth in energy consumption wiH be zero. As well as changing the relative em- phasis on present energy sources, the plan provides money for research into fusion, geothermal, wind and solar power. But ,the fact ,that the allocations for this research are roughly only 10% of those for the huildi,ng of new reac- tors shows where the government's con- fidence lies . It will be surprising if, having laid the groundwork so skilfully, the Social Democrats do not use the 1978 review to hasten the day when the Swedes will be the la,rgest users uf nuclear energy in the world. D OECD energy THE Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD) report on the problems and perspectives of energy research and development published ea,rlier this year provides a comprehensive and relatively up to date (Se,ptember 1974) review of expendi- ture on all facets of energy research throughout the OECD countries, which include Europe, the United States. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan. Although the report does not commit itself to specific criticisms of member states' energy research programmes, it obviouslv feels the need for a longer term approach to the problem, which aopears to be lacking in many aspects of energy research programmes set un in resnonse to the 'energy crisis' of 197J. It warns for instance that the sudden unsurne in enerP.:v R&D must not he subiected to cutbacks once the most soectacular effects of the crisis have receded and the nrohlcm has become less sensitive politically. In general the distribution of re- sources should be directed to keeping Nature Vol. 254 March 27 1975 as many alternative sources of energy open as possible . Research aimed at energy production should no JongeT be limited to one primary source . Perhaps the country which has made the largest turnaround is the United States which now supports a massive and diverse programme on every conceivable aspect of energy production but which pre- viously had based its energy policy very largely on the availability of cheap imported oit One important and as yet relatively undeveloped field of energy research is energy systems. This covers the inter- relationships between production, trans- port and use of energy and also takes in any factors which might have a bear- ing on the smooth functioning of that system, such as effects on the environ- ment and supply of skilled manpower. The use of energy accounting to clarify the energy flow through these systems from the level of primary energy up to the finished product is also encouraged. The study of energy systems, says OECD, can be an extremely important factor in moulding future policies. Although the tables of statistics and resea·rch programmes are necessarily incomplete and sometimes countries cannot be directly compared as some figures include a measure of industrial research whereas some pertain to gov- ernment expenditure only, they provide interesting reading. The USA of course leads the field spending over $1,000 million in the fiscal year 1974. France and Germany spent around $350 mil- lion and $450 million respectively and the United Kingdom spent around $228 million in 1973-74. With regard to the organisation of energy policy, the OECD picks out Britain and the United States as the only two countries which have set up a new ministry or agency to deal with the complete problem, thus fixing a p~li~y course that links energy R&D admm1s- tration with general energy policies. In other countries, energy research has been taken under the wing of the science ministries, where they exist, or handed to some ad hoc committee. Where energy problems can be re- duced to matters of technology to be solved by a specific research pro- gramme, the outlook seems fairly optimistic. The member states of OECD comprising as they do the most highly developed indust,rialis~d societi~s , are orientated to cope relatively easily with that type of problem . But energy is an extremely delicate political sub- ject and affects the whole nature of society. Therefore, says OECD, "future development [of energy] will mainly depend on the political decisions of countries with regard to the nature _of their economic growth and social structures". D Sweden's nuclear power game