SEE ATTACHED

see attached



see attached

Introduction

Conclusion

NUCLEAR POWER ELECTRICAL ENERGY

Nuclear Power Electrical Energy

Nuclear Power Electrical Energy

Introduction

The production of electricity by means of nuclear power always includes a certain level of risk, and most probably of the most serious kind compared to any other kinds of human production. Everyone - the general public, media, politicians, power plant employees - knows that nuclear power is potentially dangerous, and that the consequences of an accident could be devastating for humans and the environment for generations to come. Nuclear power plants have disaster potential , and therefore no trivial, everyday mistakes can be allowed to take place unheeded (Ware, 1973).

Nuclear Power Electrical Energy

This affects the way in which nuclear power plants communicate, how they describe their business. The general issues management has to take into account the anxiety produced by serious incidents as those of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, in order to create trust and confidence in the general public that the operator is competent, capable, and concerned about the health and well-being of humans and the environment. The general public's appreciation of the merits and potential dangers of nuclear power has changed significantly in Sweden during the last decades. The first reactors became operative in the mid, 1970s, but during the period from the planning of these plants to the beginning of their operation, the environment had become a major issue in Swedish politics (Ware, 1973).

The way in which these alternatives were formulated was a result of political bargaining, with clarity being sacrificed. In spite of the fact that all three alternatives were speaking of a shut down, Alternatives 1 and 2 were considered the “yes”-alternatives, while Alternative 3 was the “no”-alternative. If the alternatives were far from clear cut, the result of the referendum made it even worse: Alternative 1 got 18.9 percent, Alternative 2 got 39.1 percent, and Alternative 3 got 38.7 percent. Parliament interpreted this as a no, and decided to abolish all nuclear power, setting up 2010 as the “final date” when all plants should be shut down. The reason behind this was that the life expectancy of a nuclear power plant was considered to be 25 years (Benoit, 1995).

The reactors at the Barsebäck plant were closed down in 1999 and 2005, but mostly because the position close to the capital of Denmark had been a political problem ever since the start in the 1970s. At present, in the Fall of 2009, it is still politically uncertain what will happen, as the Right wing government in office since 2006 has proposed, informally, the construction of new reactors, and has abandoned the thought of shutting down plants in the foreseeable future (Benoit, 1995).

As the political parties have changed their views on nuclear power, so has the general public in Sweden. From 1999 to 2009, the percentage of the population in favour of diminishing or totally abolishing nuclear power has fallen from 50 to 31 percent, and the corresponding percentage of those who want to maintain the present level ...