Nuclear or not?

Press, 14 March 1980, Page 16

Nuclear or not?

By

CHRIS MORGENSSON

\ T in Stockholm

•Sweden will , vote . on March 23 in a national referendum to decide whether to scrap its nuclear power programme, which supplies a quarter of the country’s energy. •/ ' /. Irj the run-up to. the referendum/ the. anti-nuclear lobby has steadily lost the lead it held at the time of the Harrisburg accident in the United States last year. Public opinion pblls now indicate a substantial majority in favour of retaining nuclear power. Such a result could well split , the coalition Govern-, ment headed by Mr Thorbjorn Falldin, who is implacably opposed to nuclear power. ■ ■ ■; • . Falldin’s Centre Party, which draws its main sup-

port from rural areas, lines up with the Communists in supporting the third of three alternatives on the ballot papers. This calls for the phasing out of all nuclear plants over' 10 years, or more rapidly if safety standards are not met. . ■; His partners in the threeparty non-socialist Government both favour retention of nuclear power. < /■ . The Conservatives (Moderaterria) support ’ Alternative One, which calls for retention of Sweden’s six functioning nuclear power stations and the completion of a planned six additional stations. ■.

The- Liberals (Folkpartiet) line up with the Social Democrats in supporting Alternative Two,' which is much the same as Alterna-

tive One, but calls for increased research into alternative energy sources and the nationalisation of all nuclear powerplants. The referendum, i which is not binding on the Government, will .cost the taxpayer 62 million kroner $l4 million). It is the fourth referendum to be held in the! country since 1922. A government committee recently estimated that it would ■■ ist the nation 75 billion knomer ($l7 billion) or 1 20,000 krowere $4500) a person over a 20-year period to phase out nuclear energy. Sweden is heavily dependent on nuclear power, with 410 watts per .capita installed capacity.,, compared with 190 in the United States, The country has very little coal, and further hydro-elec-tric schemes would face fierce opposition from environmentalists.

Employers and the Swedish Confederation .of Trade Unions support continued use of nuclear nower: it is fear- .of increased unemplov-

ment that, has swung people in ‘favour" of the two “yes’’ alternatives. Olof Palme’s Social Democrats, the main opposition partv. have been placed in a particularly difficult position by the nuclear issue. The nartv establishment favours keening the •’ power plants while the more idealistic Left-wing wants to close them down. Palme has cbme. up with a compromise that seeks to have the, best of both worlds, '■■■■ The Alternative Two compromise is summed up by the slogan “Shut down — with commonsense,” the ide? being that the reactors must he kept until there is something to replace them. If . alternative energy sources are found and developed, the aim is a shut-down in 25 years.

It’s pretty big “if.” Sweden has dabbled with wind . power, .so called “energy forests” of quick-growing timber, peat and, of course, solar energy, but so far to little avail. Sweden imports more oil per capita than any other country in the world Last year the hill was 25 hililon knomer (35.6 billion).

If you contrast this with the fact that the country has 75 to 80 per cent of the extractable „ uranium reserves in Europe, and 15 per cent of world reserves, the economic arguments’’in favour of nuclear power start to look = . irresistible. It would be unwise to underestimate the strength of the “no” lobby, whose "main' ; argument centres on. .• the unsolved problem of disposing of • radioactive waste and>the possibility of a Harrisburg in Sweden;?: -a -j’y y . At the last count they ; were estimated to have the support of 36 per cent of voters, opposed to .56 per ■ cent in favour of keeping --.nuclear,,;- power. ' The. gap?.; could narrow as the “don’t« ” fcfibws” make up - J their. minds. . Copyright — London Observer Service. -