”the Climate requires us to think about and bet on nuclear power,” writes Martina Sturek, president of Women in Nuclear, Sweden, WiN, on DN Debate on 30 december 2018. The article is a tribute to nuclear energy as a saviour when the climate crisis worsens.
long Ago, there is a big gender differences in opinions about the nuclear excellence. According to a survey referenced in the article 57 per cent of men build while the corresponding figure for women is only 14 percent. According to Martina Sturek is because the resistance (in women) in ignorance and exaggeration. Therefore, it is necessary now an enlightened and fact-based discussion. Admittedly, writes Martina Sturek, ”we have great respect and understanding for the kärnkraftsmotstånd which has its basis in the 70’s Folkkampanj” and claims that the climate then was not on the agenda.
If your organization WiN would really have the respect they talk about the need for greater knowledge than to dismiss the 70-century opposition as ignorant and exaggerated. The fact is that there have never before been such a large popular knowledge and the environment and energy issues, as it was then. There were study groups in almost every village throughout the country. And it was not just energy efficiency we were talking about. It was about the visibility of the entire life-cycle, totally overlooked in the article.
What’s happening there? Giant heaps that is leaking and poisoning the both soils, waterways and people. Transport. In addition to that it is dangerous goods, how much drop carriers? The construction of the nuclear power plants? How many can survive without government subsidies? The Example Of Finland. At least 10 years delayed. The cost has tripled.
the Delays and rising costs, among other things, due to new safety requirements, means that nuclear power projects is too risky for private investors. Nuclear power saves lives, it is said in the article. As if it were emission-free. If you look at the entire life cycle (urandrift and the reprocessing, transport, construction of nuclear power plants, operation, dismantling and disposal of nuclear waste) provides a nuclear power plant rise to at least 6-24 times the amount of carbon dioxide equivalent compared with the wind per unit of energy produced over the same 100-year period.
for the ongoing climate change causing heat waves, storms and floods, which can be disastrous for the nuclear power plants. They can cripple the electric system, put kylmekanismerna out of the game and create overheating, with the possible meltdown as a result and thus radioactive emissions. Nuclear power reactors in Europe have already been forced to reduce or completely shut down the production because of the unusually warm weather.
the Question on the slutlager for spent nuclear fuel described in the article as solved. This despite the fact that the concept that the Swedish company SKB has developed rejected in the Land and environment court as late as January 2018.
Finally – there is not a word in the article on the link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Nuclear power and nuclear weapons are linked together. Nuclear power is a civilian by-product of the first atomvapnen. An important reason to protest against nuclear power, now as then, is the connection to nuclear weapons. Enriched uranium and reprocessed spent nuclear fuel has a clear military connection to atomvapenprogram in several kärnvapenländer.
will have consequences for generations to come, for a long time. Today’s nuclear power plants also affects the future generations. Even if all nuclear power plants would shut down immediately, the problems of radiation, waste management, dismantling and irreversible damage to the natural environment to be a fact for future generations.
Nuclear power can never be a part of the solution to the climate crisis. Nuclear power is a part of the problem.
