Talk:Nuclear power in Sweden

Date wrong?

After the 1986 Chernobyl accident in Ukraine, the question of security of nuclear energy was again called into question. In 1997 the Riksdag, the Swedish parliament, decided to shut down one of the reactors at Barsebäck by July 1, 1998 and the second before July 1, 2001, although under the condition that their energy production would be compensated. The next conservative government tried to cancel the phase-out, but, after protests, did not cancel it but instead decided to extend the time limit to 2010. At Barsebäck, block 1 was shut down on November 30, 1999 and block 2 on June 1, 2005. (My bold)

I think there must be a date wrong in this paragraph (Nuclear power in Sweden#"Fallout" from Chernobyl). There hase been no conservative government in Sweden between 1997 and now, so shouldn't the date for the decision to shut down Barsebäck be dated to 1987? The only conservative government since Chernobyl was 1991-1994, so any date after 1991 doesn't make sense. Tamino 07:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I've corrected this, as I am essentially sure it is a typo. Tamino 07:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

More history would be nice

Although the article is good at covering what it covers, it goes straight to the 1980 referendum. In my opinion, it would be good to have more history of Swedish nuclear power (the beginning of the programme, and the building of the reactors) before share their knowledge? Tamino 17:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The advisory referendum on nuclear power

I have seen the text and the translation from swedish is BAD. I will make as good translation as I can when I have time to do so. (I do not now why the translation is bad, it coud be that the translator used a summary instead of the exact text) Seniorsag 15:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the text of the 1980 referendum, it was too detailed in the context. -- eiland (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I restored the previous version. Your almost wholesale removal was in my opinion too heavy-handed since you even removed the result. In general, removing more-or-less encyclopedic material (even if not optimally written) is not the best idea. If you feel that it makes up too much of the article, it would be better to break it out to a separate article, which should then be interwikilinked to sv:Folkomröstningen om kärnkraften i Sverige 1980, the corresponding Swedish article. Tomas e (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ågesta incident

I have removed some of the text on the claimed Ågesta incident of 1969. Searching the Internet reveals a couple of blogs stating the same claims, referring to the same article in Dagens Nyheter where, apparently, a former employee at the plant made these claims, 24 years after it supposedly happened. I couldn't find the actual article online, and seeing as there is only one witness to back up this claim I think it's too strong to say that:

"Ågestaverket (R3) was very close to a nuclear meltdown. It was later established that it was a coincidence that this did not happen. This incident was covered up"

I have no great knowledge of the event, and I have no interest in covering anything up, but I think it's a bit much to claim that it's been "established" that the plant was on the brink of meltdown AND that there was a big government cover-up based on one person's testimony.

It seems as though there is an official report on the incident somewhere. If somebody is up to reading it and writing a serious piece about it on Wikipedia, I'm sure it would be very welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.32.24 (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is the report: http://www.stralsakerhetsmyndigheten.se/Global/Publikationer/Rapport/Sakerhet-vid-karnkraftverken/1996/SKI-Rapport-1996-51.pdf There seems to be no doubt about the occurance of this incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.221.135 (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I think that document makes it clear that, although there were some errors and delays in responding to the break in the cooling loop and consequent electrical problems, the reactor was never close to meltdown and even additional feasible problems would not had led to meltdown. Even zirconium oxidation and resultant hydrogen gas production was not a realistic possibility. Joffan (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

New link: https://nonuclear.se/files/SKI-Rapport-1996-51.pdf Jahibadkaret (talk) 13:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Naming

There is a discussion which is also related to this article or category. You are welcome to take a part of this discussion. Beagel (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear waste

"Sweden has a well-developed nuclear waste management policy." This statement doesn't even try to be objective and isn't supported by the rest of the paragraph where the policy appears to be storage above-ground storage which is not considered to be a solution for Tc-99 (half-life 220,000 years) and I-129 (half-life 15.7 million years) in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Management I propose to remove this first line and to add a reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_management where it says that "no known human civilization has ever endured for so long, and no geologic formation of adequate size for a permanent radioactive waste repository has yet been discovered that has been stable for so long a period." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svossen (talk • contribs) 16:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)