Re: Swedish energy authority says ok to scrap 2nd nuke

["Bjorn Cedervall" <bcradsafers@hotmail.com>]

>Are environmentalists really pleased that non-polluting nuclear is being 
>replaced with Danish coal?

Ted Rockwell
--------------------------
An observation around X-mas was that Norway bought Danish electricity. At a 
first reflection that doesn't make sense - Norway has a lot of hydropower... 
but that can be sold to Sweden in February and March - I think that we were 
lucky that those months weren't too bad this year (I fled to southern Calif. 
and the Deep South by that time to make sure).

But back to the main track: Sweden can lose in two ways:
1. Dirt from Denmark and then
2. Pay Norway for it (it is embarassing).

In other words: Norway potential double winner.
Denmark: +/- (they pollute some of their own country and don't make the full 
profit but all their ammonia partly buffers acid rain)
Sweden: Potential double loser.

This is three steps of logic thinking! One step of logic is that the Swedish 
NPPs are equipped with mitigating filters that probably are unique - 
shutting down these perhaps safest kinds of NPPs first is "kind of strange" 
to most people who understand the function of the filters.

I don't know what the environmentalists say "between four eyes" today - I 
left that track in 1987 when the seriously intended environmental  movement 
(protecting rare species, habitats and other values) became too flimsy to me 
(I was the president of the largest environmental protection organisation of 
the Stockholm region 1980-83 - we had 18000 members when I left in 1983). We 
had access to tons of information about acid rain (including details about 
buffer capacity of our soils, lakes and so on, corrosion...), heavy metals 
in peat and coal, vulnerable species along our large unexploited rivers etc, 
etc. And we had the highest oil consumption in the world around 1980 - 4 
tons/capita and year - very costly! Much analysis was successively trashed 
and replaced by fundamentalist attitudes. Anyone who was not antinuclear was 
automatically defined as pronuclear and an enemy etc. Toxic properties of 
semiconductors in solar cells or animals specialized on eating Salix 
("future energy forests" - potentially competing for use of land with other 
forms of agriculture and silvestry) were suddenly uninteresting.

My personal ideas and reflections only - some of which may be shared by 
others,

Bjorn Cedervall   bcradsafers@hotmail.com

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html