Information Papers

Nuclear Power in Sweden

(July 2008)

Sweden's electricity consumption has been rising and it has one of the world's highest individual levels of consumption: about 18,000 kWh/head.  About half of domestic production is nuclear, and up to half hydro, depending on the season (affecting hydro potential).  In 2007 nuclear power produced 64.3 billion kWh, 46% of total.

In 2006 Sweden generated an unusually low 143 billion kWh, 47 % from nuclear and 43% from hydro.  Imports and exports vary according to season, with Finland, Norway and Denmark providing the main traffic.  In 2004 net exports were 2 TWh, in 2005, 7.4 TWh (7.0 net to Denmark, 5.8 net to Finland and 8.0 net import from Norway).  Per capita consumption is about 14,500 kWh/yr.

The state utility is Vattenfall AB, and private utilities include E.ON Sweden AB and Fortum Oy (majority owned by the Finnish government).

Up to the late 1960s there was a focus on hydro electricity to power Sweden's industrial growth. In 1965 it was decided to supplement this with nuclear power, to avoid the uncertainties of oil prices and increase the security of supply. The policy was reinforced by the oil shocks of the early 1970s, at a time when Sweden depended on oil for about one fifth of its electricity and electricity demand was increasing 7% per year.

In the mid 1970s the nuclear push became a political issue, and 1977 legislation was passed to ensure proper waste management. This provided the basis for Sweden's world leadership in management of spent fuel (particularly for those countries not reprocessing it).

Sweden has been an enthusiastic supporter of measures to improve world environmental quality. Among many others, Sweden in 1992 committed itself to stabilise carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels by 2000, and this was reaffirmed in Berlin in 1995. The fact that those levels in 1990 were only 60% of 1970's was due to nuclear energy replacing most oil for electricity generation.

Nuclear industry development

In 1947 the government established an atomic energy research organization, AB Atomenergi. Then in 1956 a Commission recommended development of nuclear power program also producing heat. Atomenergi commissioned a 50 MW test reactor at Studsvik in 1960 to further this goal. (It was run by Studsvik AB and decommissioned in mid 2005.)

In 1964 Atomenergi and Vattenfall together commissioned the small (65 MW thermal) Agesta heavy water reactor to deliver 55 MW of heat and a little electricity to Stockholm. It operated until 1974.

The two organisations then started to build the larger (140 MWe) Marviken heavy water reactor supplied by ASEA, but the project was aborted just before fuel loading.

Following a proposal for a small boiling water reactor (BWR), a Sydkraft-led consortium OKG AB ordered a 460 MWe BWR unit - Oskarshamn-1 from ASEA in 1966. This was the first western light water reactor designed an built without requiring a licence from US vendors. It started up in 1972.

In 1968 Vattenfall ordered Ringhals-1, a 750 MWe BWR from ASEA, and Ringhals-2, an 800 MWe PWR from Westinghouse, in order to compare the technologies. Two further PWRs were built at Ringhals.

In 1969 OKG ordered Oskarshamn-2 and Sydkraft ordered Barseback-1 with option for unit 2, all from ASEA Atom. In the 1970s Vattenfall cooperated with other utilities to build the Forsmark nuclear plant.

Six reactors entered commercial service in the 1970s and six in the 1980s. One Barseback unit closed in 1999 and another in May 2005. The 12 reactors were at four sites around the southern coast.

Sweden now has 10 nuclear power reactors providing almost half its electricity from 9000 MWe of capacity. Nuclear power produced 77.5 billion kWh in 2004 - 51% of total electricity production, 72.4 billion kWh in 2005 - 46% of total.

Sweden's nuclear power reactors:

 

Operator Reactor Type Net MWe Commercial
operation
OKG
Oskarshamn 1
BWR
467 MWe
1972
OKG
Oskarshamn 2
BWR
598 MWe
1974
OKG
Oskarshamn 3
BWR
1153 MWe
1985
Vattenfall
Ringhals 1
BWR
855 MWe
1976
Vattenfall
Ringhals 2
PWR
866 MWe
1975
Vattenfall
Ringhals 3
PWR
985 MWe
1981
Vattenfall
Ringhals 4
PWR
935 MWe
1983
Vattenfall
Forsmark 1
BWR
987 MWe
1980
Vattenfall
Forsmark 2
BWR
1000 MWe
1981
Vattenfall
Forsmark 3
BWR
1170 MWe
1985
  Total (10)   9016 MWe
Net capacities updated 7/07

In connection with debate on closure of Barseback (see below) in the late 1990s the government imposed a capacity tax on nuclear power, at SEK 5514 per MW thermal per month, which works out at about 2.8 to 3.0 �re/kWh (EUR 0.30 - 0.32 cents) potentially produced, penalising nuclear relative to other sources. In January 2006 the tax was almost doubled to SEK 10,200 per MWt (about EUR 0.6c/kWh). In 2007 it was proposed to increase it further to SEK 12,684 per MWt from 2008 - total SEK 4 billion (EUR 435 million, meaning about 0.67/kWh).

Sweden's electricity imports have normally balanced exports, with a small net flow in from Norway and out to Finland. In 2005 - a good year for hydro - net exports were 7 billion kWh mainly to Finland and Denmark, while in 2006 - a poor year for hydro - net imports were 6 billion kWh. In response to Sweden's uncertainty, Finland is building a fifth nuclear reactor there. It has recently increased the capacity of its two Swedish-built nuclear reactors by 23% and that of the others by 11%. A new 800 MWe undersea transmission line is being built by 2010 to enable export of electricity to Sweden from Finland's new Olkiluoto reactor.

Boosting capacity

The government is working with the utilities to expand nuclear capacity to replace the 1200 MWe lost in closure of Barseback-1 & 2.

First, Ringhals applied to the Nuclear Power Inspectorate (SKI) for a major uprate on the 915 MWe unit 3, on the basis of steam generator replacement already undertaken and more to follow as low pressure turbines were replaced in 2007.  Early in 2008 it was operating at 985 MWe net, less than anticipated, but a further 5% uprate is expected.  On the older BWR unit 1 a 15 MWe uprate was completed in 2007, with another 15 MWe to follow in future.  Ringhals 4 had a 30 MWe uprate to 935 MWe following replacement of its low pressure turbines in 2007.  Exchange of high pressure turbines and steam generators in 2011 and other work is expected to yield a further 240 MWe.  The total uprate for Ringhals plant over 2006-11 is likely to be more than 400 MWe.

, costing SEK 2 billion (EUR 225 million) to be carried out over 2008-10. The plant will then provide and extra 3.3 billion kWh/yr. In 2004 low pressure turbines were replaced in unit 3, giving a 30 MWe uprate, and it the same is being done for units 1 & 2. This was approved by SKI in May 2006.

In 2005 SKI approved a 250 MWe uprate of Oskarshamn-3 reactor, to 1450 MWe net, and this was confirmed by the government in January 2006. The EUR 180 million project involves turbine upgrade by Alstom in 2008, as well as reactor upgrade, and will extend the plant's life to 60 years, but deferred by one year by the company in 2007.

See also Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate.

Ambivalent Energy Policy

The Three Mile Island accident in the USA resulted in a decision to call a public referendum in Sweden, to remove the issue from the election campaign late in 1979. The 1980 referendum canvassed three options for phasing out nuclear energy, but none for maintaining it. A clear majority of voters favoured running the existing plants and those under construction as long as they contributed economically, in effect to the end of their normal operating lives (assumed then to be 25 years). Parliament decided to embargo further expansion of nuclear power and aim for decommissioning the 12 plants by 2010 if new energy sources were available realistically to replace them.

The 1986 Chernobyl disaster (first recognised at a Swedish nuclear power station) created some pressure to progress the issue of nuclear decommissioning. In 1988 the government decided to begin the phase-out in 1995, but this decision was overturned in 1991 following pressure from the trade unions.

In 1994 the government appointed an Energy Commission consisting principally of backbench politicians, which reported at the end of 1995 that a complete phase-out of nuclear power by 2010 would be economically and environmentally impossible. However, it said that one unit might be shut down by 1998.

This gave rise to intense political manoeuvring among the main political parties, all of them minority, with varied attitudes to industrial, nuclear and environmental issues. The Social Democrats ruled a minority government but with any one of the other parties they were able to get a majority in parliament.

Early in 1997 an agreement was forged between the Social Democrats and two of the other parties which resulted in a decision to close Barseback units 1 and 2, both 600 MWe boiling water reactors constructed by ASEA-Atom and commissioned in 1975 and 1977. They are only 30 kilometres from the Danish capital, Copenhagen, and have been a source of contrived concern to the Danes on that account. They closed in 1999 and 2005 respectively.

The positive aspect of this decision to close Barseback is that the other ten reactors gained a reprieve beyond 2010, and will be able to run for about 40 years (ie closing 2012-2025). A phase-out program was to be decided before 2002, but remains uncertain.

In the 1970s it was the Centre Party in Sweden which started the anti-nuclear debate culminating in the 1980 referendum canvassing three options for phasing out nuclear energy. Since then the Centre Party has lined up with the three socialist parties on nuclear power, but the three non-socialist parties on other issues. Early in 2005 the leadership of the Centre Party indicated a substantial reversal of this earlier anti-nuclear position, saying that climate change must be put ahead of nuclear decommissioning. This view was in line with the overwhelming majority of public opinion.

Against a background of increasing electricity prices, the Centre Party then abandoned its alignment with the socialist parties on energy policy and fully joined the three pro-nuclear parties, so as to allow nuclear power to continue supplying a major part of the country's electricity.

In September 2006 elections the Conservative-led coalition which came to power was much more in tune with popular sentiment and positive about nuclear power than its predecessor. The Centre party in the coalition had recently changed its view to be more in favour of nuclear power, aligning with the Christian Democrats, Liberals and Conservatives. While no reactors will be closed, planning of new units is not on the agenda during the coalition's first term. However, several major reactor upgrades will be undertaken. In March 2007 the Christian Democrats changed their policy to explicitly disown the phase-out and allow for new reactors being built after 2010.

Early in 2008 leaders of the Liberal Party called for construction of four new reactors at existing sites as replacements for those which would be retired in the 2020s.  They also called for a policy focus on electric vehicles rather than biofuels.

Barseback closure 

Production from Barseback was to be replaced by power from wood-fuelled, combined heat and power plants, some wind power and extensive conservation measures such as replacing electric heating with gas. It was accepted that increased natural gas consumption and some net electricity imports (eg from Danish and German coal-fired and nuclear power stations) would also be needed.

Sydkraft, the utility owning Barseback, responded by challenging the legality of the government decision and made a formal complaint to the European Commission on the basis of unreasonable discrimination. It also negotiated with the Swedish government regarding full compensation in actual generating capacity, not simply money.

The result was that unit 1 closed at the end of November 1999 under a complex agreement among the government, Sydkraft and state-owned Vattenfall to transfer an interest in the latter's Ringhals plant (one 835 MWe BWR and three slightly larger PWRs) to Sydkraft.

The twin unit, Barseback-2, continued in operation under a new joint production company: Ringhals AB, in which Sydkraft (now E.ON Sweden) had a 25.8% share (though Barseback-2 contributes only 14.5% of the capacity). Reactor ownership was unchanged.

Then in October 2004, after two years of discussion with utilities on the future of the country's nuclear power plants, the Swedish government broke off negotiations and declared that Barseback-2 would close in May 2005 after 28 years operation, regardless of previously-agreed conditions regarding indigenous replacement power. Barseback-2 closed at the end of May 2005.

Compensation for the premature closure of unit 1 in 1999 cost the Swedish taxpayers SEK 5.7 billion (EUR 593 million) plus a payment for operating unit 2 on its own. The compensation for unit 2 was agreed at SEK 5.6 billion (EUR 583 million) - 4.1 billion to Vattenfall in return for transferring part of its ownership in Ringhals AB to E.ON (taking E.ON's share to 29.56%), and 1.5 billion to E.ON.

Removal of 8.5 TWh/yr from the county's nuclear output is being replaced by imports from Germany and Denmark, much of it coal-fired, and by nuclear generation from Finland and Russia, in the latter case from old Chernobyl-type reactors which the EU is anxious to shut down elsewhere.

Industry and trade union leaders had strong words about the proposed Barseback closure. This "will be fought and we will never accept that the country unnecessarily throws away 20 to 30 billion kronor [US$ 2-3 billion] while we chop wood to meet energy needs" said Volvo Chairman, the late B.Svanholm, in a widely quoted letter with a further 100 signatures. The letter was critical of a worsening business climate in Sweden and said that the plan to "decommission a clean, cheap and highly effective form of energy is the last straw."

The cost of electricity figured strongly in industry considerations. The Energy Commission put basic nuclear costs at 15-18 ore (EUR 1.7 to 2.0 cents) per kilowatt hour, including waste management, capital improvements and decommissioning. Any replacement capacity will inevitably cost considerably more (eg gas at 30 ore/ 2.85 cents/kWh), and both trade unions and industry were extremely concerned at the likely effect of this.

Public Opinion 

Public opinion in Sweden has been much tested. The first point to note is that the 1980 referendum did not canvass any option for continuing Sweden's nuclear power program. Many wish it had, just to provide a benchmark.

Since then however public opinion has steadily strengthened in favour of nuclear energy.

In April 2004, 77% of people gave top environmental priority to restraining greenhouse gas emissions, 13% to protecting unspoiled rivers from hydro-electric development, and only 7% to phasing out nuclear power. On nuclear power matters, 17% supported a nuclear phase-out, 27% favoured continued operation of all the country's nuclear power units, 32% favoured this plus their replacement in due course, and 21% wanted to further develop nuclear power in Sweden. The total support for maintaining or increasing nuclear power thus was 80% as the government tried to negotiate a phase out. This total support had risen to 83% in March 2005, with a similar proportion saying that limiting greenhouse gas emissions should be the top environmental priority.

With slightly different questions, total support for maintaining or developing nuclear power was 79% in June 2006 and fluctuated around this to June 2008 when it was 82%, comprising 40% who favoured expanding nuclear capacity and 42% who favoured continuing to operate present plants but not building more.  A self-assessed 18% (26% of men, 11% of women) said in November 2007 they had become more positive towards nuclear power in the light of concerns about climate change, while 7% (4% of men, 10% of women) said they had become more negative.  This may be related to 14% who thought that nuclear power was a source of CO2 with a large impact on the environment - 8% of men and 21% of women.

Waste Management

Sweden has its nuclear waste management well in hand.  Svensk Karnbranslehantering AB (Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co, SKB) was formed in the 1970s and work began on planning how to take care of Sweden's spent nuclear fuel.  SKB is owned by the four power companies and is responsible for managing and disposing of radioactive wastes from Sweden's nuclear power.

Some low-level waste is disposed of at reactor sites, some is incinerated at Studsvik.

A dedicated ship moves the used fuel and wastes from power plants to storage or repositories.

A final underground repository (SFR) for operational - up to intermediate-level waste and medical and industrial radioactive wastes has been operating near Forsmark since 1988. It has 63,000 cubic metre capacity and receives about 1000 cubic metres per year. This is also one of the locations proposed by the local Oesthammer community for a final HLW repository.

The CLAB interim repository for spent fuel (treated as high level waste) has been operating since 1985 at Oskarshamn, and its original 5000 tonne capacity* has been expanded to 8000 tonnes to cater for all the fuel from all the present reactors. The used fuel is stored under water in an underground rock cavern for some 40-50 years. It will then be encapsulated in copper and stainless steel canisters for final emplacement packed with bentonite clay in a 500 metre deep repository in granite. At the end of 2007 about 4500 tonnes of used fuel was at CLAB.

* the 5000 t capacity allowed for 20,000 BWR fuel assemblies and 2500 PWR assemblies. 

Research at the Aspo Hard Rock Laboratory nearby is well advanced towards identifying characteristics for this final deep repository. Site selection procedures are also well advanced, and two municipalities have now voted to be candidate locations for a deep geological repository - Oskarshamn and Osthammar (at Forsmark). Both these had been selected as having potentially suitable bedrock characteristics, after feasibility studies in eight municipalities. They will now undergo more detailed site investigation, which will be followed by site characterisation at one of them. An April 2008 independent poll in both communities (N=900 in each) showed that 83% of Oskarshamn residents and 77% of those in Östhammar support having the future repository in their own locality.  Six neighbouring localities were also surveyed in 2008 and while the majority of residents were in favour of a final repository in the neighbouring municipalities, support diminished as distance increased.

SKB applied for a permit to build an encapsulation plant next to CLAB at Oskarshamn in November 2006. This will be operated with CLAB and licensing is expected after 2009. SKB expects to apply for a permit to build the final repository in 2008 or 2009 at the selected location.

Nuclear generators are responsible for the costs of managing and disposing of spent fuel, and must provide for those costs as they go. They pay a fee set by the government to a state fund administered by SKI to cover waste management and decommissioning. This is based on advice from SKB and has averaged SEK 0.02 /kWh (EUR 0.21 c/kWh).

Some 4.8 tonnes of metal used fuel from the R1 research reactor has been sent to UK's Sellafield plant for reprocessing in the Magnox plant, since it cannot safely be stored long-term. Plutonium from this will be combined with the small quantity from reprocessed Oskarshamn fuel (reprocessed some years ago) and returned as MOX fuel.

Four power reactors - Agesta, Marviken (never operated) and Barseback-1 & 2 are being decommissioned, along with three research reactors - R1, R2 and R2O at Studsvik. R1 has now been dismantled.

R&D

Studsvik is a public company whose origins were in 1947 as a largely state-owned enterprise. In the 1960s it relocated from Stockholm to Nykoping, focused on pure R&D and subsequently it became industry-funded and owned. In the 1990s it became an international enterprise.

Studsvik's 600 kW R1 research reactor operated 1954-70. R2-0 was a 1 MW research reactor which operated from 1960-2005. R2 was a large test reactor which operated 1960-2005. Both the R2 units were used for isotope production.

Studsvik operated R2, a 50 MW test reactor which was involved with international research programs testing reactor fuel elements. It used high-enriched fuel supplied by the USA and with used fuel returned to the USA. In collaboration with CERCA in France the company was working on qualifying a high-density U-Mo fuel to enable low enrichment to be used. However, R2 was shut down in mid 2005 and its work taken over by the 20 MW Halden heavy water reactor in Norway, operated by IFE.

Agesta (10 MWe plus district heating) was built as a prototype heavy water power reactor which if necessary could serve as a stopgap source of plutonium for Sweden's nuclear arsenal (which had been proposed in the 1950s). It was also known as R3 and operated 1964-74. Marviken (R4) heavy water reactor was intended for research plus power generation (130 MWe) and plutonium production but was never fuelled or operated, and work was abandoned in 1970.

Government-funded R&D totalled SKR 10.5 million in 2007, focused on reactor safety as well as ensuring that Sweden maintains competence in the nuclear industry. A ban on nuclear research was removed in 2006.

Regulation and Safety

An Atomic Energy Act was passed in 1956, followed by a Radiation Protection Act in 1958. The Atomic Energy Act and several others were superseded by the Nuclear Activities Act in 1984.

In the 1960s the Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate (SKI) was set up and became responsible for licensing, regulation and supervision under the Nuclear Activities Act.  Its 3 divisions were reactor safety, safeguards, and research.  The Swedish Radiation Protection Authority (SSI) operated under the Radiation Protection Act 1988.  In mid 2008 the two organisations were merged to become the independent Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (SRSA) encompassing both radiation protection and nuclear safety regulation.

In July 2006 a safety-related incident at Forsmark received a lot of media coverage. It was eventually assigned a rating of 2 on the INES scale. Following a request by management of the three nuclear plants, in March 2007 the director of the IAEA's Operational Safety Section met with representatives from SKI and the Swedish Radiation Protection Authority as well as management from the three plants and the Environment Ministry. This was to discuss safety culture problems and to arrange Operational Safety Team Review (OSART) missions to the Swedish reactors, the first being to Forsmark.

The Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company (SKB) was set up by the nuclear utilities following the Waste Legislation (Stipulation Act) in 1977 to develop a comprehensive concept for disposal of spent fuel and other radioactive wastes. It is owned 36% by Vattenfall, 30% Forsmark, 22% OKG and 12% E.ON Sweden.

The nuclear training and safety centre (KSU) is a vital ancillary organization and is responsible for liaison with WANO.

Non-proliferation

Sweden is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a non-nuclear weapons state. Its safeguards agreement under the NPT came into force in 1975 and in 1995 it came under the Euratom safeguards arrangement. In 1998 it signed the Additional Protocol in relation to its safeguards agreements with both IAEA and Euratom.

Sources:
IAEA 2003, Country Nuclear Power Profiles
SKB 2001, Deep repository for spent nuclear fuel.
G. Greenhalgh, Nuclear Engineering International, June 1996.