Licensing of nuclear power plants: The case of Sweden in an international comparison

Michanek, Gabriel; Söderholm, Patrik

doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.04.051

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the development of new hydropower is restricted in Sweden by the low availability of appropriate sites and the difficulties in getting permission to build. In 2009 the Swedish Government announced its intention to abandon the moratorium on investments in new nuclear plants, and a new legislation will be put in place during 2010 (see also Michanek and Söderholm, 2009). 3 The Danes have also designed a streamlined permitting process for these offshore projects (see also Section 4), and the Danish Energy Authority acts as an one-stop shop for environmental assessment and licensing procedures (Nielsen, 2007).…”

Section: The Political Economy Of Supporting Offshore Wind Power In Smentioning

confidence: 98%

Offshore wind power policy and planning in Sweden

Söderholm

Pettersson

2011

Energy Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Political Economy Of Supporting Offshore Wind Power In Smentioning

confidence: 98%

Offshore wind power policy and planning in Sweden

Söderholm

Pettersson

2011

Energy Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Froggatt 2007;Pidgeon et al 2008;Durrant 2009;Greenhalgh and Azapagic 2009;Kenley et al 2009;Michanek and So¨derholm 2009;Guang and Wenjie 2010), and nuclear power has been reframed as a viable option for the development of a low-carbon society (Morland 2001;Toke 2005;Bleischwitz and Fuhrmann 2006;Bickerstaff et al 2008;Litmanen 2009). Geographically examined, the centre of the current nuclear power expansion can be located in Asia (IAEA 2009, 1; see also Nikitin et al 2010, 40).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Not excluding nuclear power: the dynamics and stability of nuclear power policy arrangements in Finland

Litmanen

Kojo

2011

Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we aim at using the policy arrangement approach to explain the renewal of nuclear power policy in Finland from 1986 to 2010. From the point of view of national nuclear power decision making, we distinguish three different policy arrangement periods: (1) rejection (1986-1993), (2) revival (1994-2002) and (3) renewal (2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010). Within each period, the four dimensions which are, such as policy coalitions, 'rules of the game', policy discourses and resources are analysed. The three periods indicate that policy development has not been unilinear. In the rejection period, the 'shock event' of Chernobyl mixed up the policy arrangement. For example, the supporting coalition was temporarily paralysed, the political effectiveness of discourses changed and the anti-nuclear coalition found new resources. In the revival period, liberalisation and deregulation of electricity markets altered the formal rules of the game. A new energy policy of not excluding nuclear power was formulated, in which nuclear power was defined as a low-emission and technically or economically viable mode of production that could support environmental and climate objectives. The informal rules of the game also changed, as the supporting coalition re-styled its lobbying strategy. The latest period -renewal -is characterised by a strong supporting coalition aimed at further increasing nuclear power production capacity in Finland. This was most evident in the discourse aimed at the liberalisation of the licensing process. Despite changed policy arrangements, there is also continuity in the Finnish nuclear power policy, as the main formal rule of the game -the Nuclear Energy Act of 1987 -was largely left untouched. The supporting coalition seemed to survive the nadirs better than the challenging coalition, due to the proximity of interests held by the energy-intensive export industry, state and labour unions over the last two periods, and due to an asymmetry in the resources. It was revealed that climate change discourse strengthened during all the periods. The analysis also indicated the importance of the government programme, as it may or may not exclude nuclear power.

show abstract

“…A direct translation of the Finnish term yhteysviranomainen describes the ministry as the ''contact authority'', rather than ''coordinating authority'' as it is officially termed in English documents. This direct translation is often preferred by administrative staff, simply because it claims less involvement with the issue to be The licensing of nuclear power plants in Sweden is similar to the Finnish procedure, but decisions following a public referendum in 1980 to phase out nuclear power are still in place and nuclear new build would require a new policy (Elam and Sundqvist 2009;Michanek and So¨derholm 2009). The Finnish way of handling applications emphasises the role of executive authorities, the government and the Ministry of Employment and the Economy, and the legislator to decide in principle on a nuclear facility.…”

Section: The Role Of Authorities and Governmental Decision Makersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, in Sweden the objectives for a governmental decision are outlined in the Environmental Code, whereas the Nuclear Energy Act defines the content of the ''overall good of society'' in Finland. Further, the decision by the Swedish government may be appealed for judicial review (Michanek and So¨derholm 2009). This option is not available in Finland, but could be a possibility to let citizens and environmental groups participate in more strategic considerations.…”

Section: The Role Of Authorities and Governmental Decision Makersmentioning

confidence: 99%