Battleangel

As you may or may not know, Sweden is on the brink of large scale energy crisis. Despite 24 years to remedy the situation, our political leadership has been reluctant to do the right thing. Or anything for that matter.

People do not seem to realize how the constitution works. Referendums cannot dictate the political agenda. Referendums can only give a sample of the opinion and a general guide to the governing body. Indirect or representative democracy I believe it is called. There is no country on earth that has got a democracy in the real sense of the word. And such a nation would crumble under its own stupidity, should it it not have citizens of exceptional quality and wit. Given the current public awareness level, this is something that is not to be in the foreseeable future. Perhaps not ever.

The point is that the referendum that was held in 1980 means nothing. Not to me and certainly not to the constitution. A law was passed that limited the lifespan of currently active reactor sites to the year 2010, but that was given the technological know-how that was available 24 years ago. All of this is of course old news.
Now once again, political parties and representatives squabble to come to an agreement over the future of nuclear power. Some of those parties have entered with the opinion that nuclear power has to go no matter what. Such profound and sappy stubbornness disqualifies further involvement in my opinion. Opinions hold no weight, only science and hard facts do. If that is not your primary agenda and you are unwilling to act responsible on behalf of the constituents then by all means, leave now. It’s not about doing what people want but rather what is right. If we wanted mindless rabble to run the country we could just pick up any guy off the street. Not that this isn’t what is happening in a democratic system.
Whatever happened to the cherished doctrine of utilitarianism? You know, “the greatest happiness for the greatest number” or the other way around that “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”. It’s all pretty simple. We need energy and so we make energy, the safest and cleanest way we know how. Nuclear fission is by no means ideal but until someone shows me an operational fusion reactor with net output, this is as good as it is gonna get.

Hippies like the Anti Nuclear Movement and left wing extremists cannot grasp reality beyond what the see and feel in their own little subjective lives. They try to mix up the cards by making the perplexing connection to nuclear weapons and God knows what. They reason like the rabble that they are.
They are generally simplistic and radical in their logic. They feel that since they do not believe in nuclear fission, it is suddenly unsafe and environmentally unfriendly. And because of this nuclear sites (that are in fact owned in part by private companies) can be dismantled without any consideration thought to compensation. They simply view the energy supplied since 1972 and the effort that has undoubtedly made Sweden an industrial force to be reckoned with as a CRIME. Against whom? Ahh, the sweet problems that arise in the post-industrial age.

Another questionable conclusion is that power consumption will decline in the future. Of that I am not so sure. It all comes down to what kind of society you had in mind. If you’re an environmental hippie that doesn’t want much of the high tech world then I guess you could buy that. Consumption has declined slightly over the years, even if it has been minute changes.
HOWEVER, it is also reasonable to assume that those alternative energy sources that some people foolishly hope will pop out of the ground, will not develop in a vacuum (if they will develop at all). Chances are that future technology will also bring new energy consuming devices unlike we can imagine today. That of course is hard to foresee, but so is the imaginary technology that these people advocate. It also amuses me that people with no training in natural science or engineering just boldly assume that someone else will fix the problem they aim to create.
In one way their deduction holds true. People are capable of so much more under stress. Just look at the advancements made during WW2. But world war comes pretty high on the stress scale and creating such adverse conditions, even on smaller scale (such as a “controlled” energy deficit) might not be generally appreciated.

Another perplexing thing is why we haven’t properly taken advantage of our other “natural” and clean source of energy, hydroelectric power. Granted, Sweden does produce almost as much power from hydroelectric as nuclear sources. But it is noway near our potential. Again, environmentalists keep hugging fish and living in the past while turbines and ecological measures have progressed to a level where hydroelectric expansion can be made virtually free of pitfalls. But still, the extremists favor windmills (aerogenerators). For them, nothing short of the radical is good enough. After years of modest aerogenerator construction we have a production capability of 620 GWh. Not even close to covering the production-import gap which was over 24000 GWh last year. Plus aerogenerators are inefficient in the sense that every unit requires a great deal of resources to build. And those resources obviously aren’t free. Also, metals and plastics are made in relatively energy consuming processes. It like when they force you to recycle your garbage (which is good) and then transport it in big stinking trucks halfway across the country. It’s just a shuffling of resources and problems and goes to prove how great the cognitive capabilities and the attention span of people.

One more thing to consider is the global situation when it comes to petroleum. There will come a time when we can no longer depend on that resource to conveniently fill the gap. The recent instability in the middle east has convinced me that we must do everything in our power to cut that dependency to a minimum. We don’t need petroleum, especially not for producing electricity. Doing so would be in violation of the Kyoto agreement anyway.
There might come a time soon when, due to raised prices (OPEC waltz), a change in availability (one word: China) or other events (e.g. terrorist attack against Saudi Arabia, much like the preface to Red Storm rising by Tom Clancy, or the Saudis simply cutting exports) that will make any country that is self sufficient on electricity prevail with ease. Right now we could pull it off, barely, with no nuclear reactors it would be hell.

Will common sense prevail? Does it ever?