the national Referendum on nuclear energy in Sweden held march 23, 1980. The vote was three to the proposal, which was called line 1, Line 2 and Line 3. The different lines corresponds to different partigruppers vision, but everyone involved is really nuclear. Line 3 is at a rapid pace, the rest by then at the latest, existing, or under construction, being of the reactors wear out. Line 2, which is represented by the social democrats and people’s Party got the most votes. It’s meant to be, we decided on the following:

(as A percentage of the settlement as is possible, taking into account the need for electric power.

, is A public ownership, where the Nuclear power plant and the future plant for the generation of electric power, of importance, shall be the property of the state and the municipality.

, That the conservation of energy is carried out strongly and encourage it further. The most vulnerable people in society are protected.

I was four years old when the referendum was carried out, and the reason is not particularly familiar or interested in the decision. Today, more than 40 years later, I have a samhällsintresserad, committed citizens and politicians, in the Västervik municipality, which is trying to understand the best way to cope with the challenges of creating a sustainable society.
Now, you know, more than that of the 1980s, the Decision of the Swedish people, the 1980’s really isn’t that much more to think about. We are able to conclude that the decision was made on the basis of what you know at the time, and the facts that were presented. However, in 40 years, there have been a lot, and the generations of people who voted in 1980, and is still alive today, one can certainly testify to how fast the development has gone.

today, it is 40 per cent of the Swedish electricity production. Photo by: < / b> by ALEX LJUNGDAHL

it can also be seen how the increasing pace of development, and the research is changing the conditions of the us and, thus, also the approach of the faktagrund that we use when we consider it in our decisions and general opinions. Access to information has also made it a much more efficient way, can take advantage of several facts and ways of thinking, both in terms of positive and negative trends as well as short-term and long-term consequences.

they had simply no options available
The problem is that we still rely on the decision taken in the referendum of 1980, when the Swedish people had to choose between a variety of ”No ” to Nuclear power.

today, we can see that the trend is driving the need for a sustainable, more secure and more stable supply of electricity. Sweden’s competitiveness and well-being requires a healthy supply of electricity. Our daily lives are totally dependent on electricity, and in critical systems can have serious problems in the long-term. In addition, a comprehensive rural electrification of industry and transport is absolutely vital for the klimatomställningen. Key to reach the climate goals are to
today, it is 40 per cent of the Swedish electricity production. Along with hydro-power, means of nuclear power to our electricity system, has a significantly lower carbon footprint than that of fossildrivna countries. Nuclear power plays a central role in the american fossil-fuel-free electricity. The united nations intergovernmental panel on climate change identifies nuclear energy as an important part of the klimatproblemens solution to global climate change, nuclear power in the world will increase by between 90 and 200 per cent. It applies here as well, if Sweden is to be able to meet the klimatutmaningarna need an expansion of nuclear power.

the Issue of sustainability, and nuclear energy is a cross-political issue that deserves a referendum in which the options ‘ yes ‘ and ‘ no ‘ should be selected and in which we, the citizens, must make choices on the basis of today’s facts and tomorrow’s vision. To focus on the issue of nuclear power as a partifråga is not democratic. < / span> < / span>

the Leader of the conservative party in Västervik municipality.

READ MORE: , the Right-wing belief in nuclear power is beginning to look like a bad father. READ MORE: Without nuclear power, there will be no elbilsrevolution READ MORE: : Green dreams, threatens the welfare system – now more kärnkraftSå, may the nuclear energy be developed, are the experts