Reply to submitter ”Nuclear power is worse for the climate than the sun and the wind” in the DN Opinion on 18 march by Olov Holmstrand and Jan Lindholm:
Our power systems are zero carbon, since the 80’s. We can maintain and build on it and meet the increased electrification to replace fossil activities, such as transport and heating. It is fossil-free energy that the climate crisis needs, and not renewable.
the Authors highlight some objections to include nuclear power among the actions against the climate crisis. But the facts speak to the contrary.
from the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC and all climate-neutral sources of energy for the 1,5-gradersmålet should be able to be reached. Therefore, include the experts in nuclear power generation in all the four scenarios that are brought up.
There are many life cycle assessment shows that nuclear power emits the least carbon dioxide per kilowatttimme of all sources. This includes the entire life cycle including uranium mining, enrichment, construction, demolition and final disposal.
another claim of the submitter is that you never have time to catch up with the expansion and it will be too expensive. But our first ten reactors built in the last ten years. Later came the Oskarshamn 3 that was built over five years at a cost of 15 billion (which is equivalent to 47 billion in today’s money) and at the same time, even at Forsmark 3. For five years, the expanded capacity of 2.200 megawatts. It would be quite possible even today.
renewable technologies. The consultancy firm Sweco has been trying to find out what is required for a transition to a hundred percent renewable electricity. It turns out that it would take 20 years to an unimaginable cost far in excess of the whole of the kingdom’s annual budget. But when the predicted power rationing, untried technologies and greater emissions than in the day.
It is also alleged that there is no approved method for final disposal of spent nuclear fuel. But Finland has an approved method, copied from the Swedish KBS3-method, Swedish nuclear fuel and waste management is to license in Sweden. If it is approved in Finland, it shouldn’t be hard to get approved here, that is to say, if not some all of the time puts a spanner in the works.
GenIV. The technique was known already in the 50’s, but because uranium was relatively cheap, was used in place of the current urancykel. Försöksreaktorer are in Russia and China and small-scale reactors with GenIV technology studied in the united states and Canada.
technology recycled used fuel and new uranium need be mined within at least a thousand years. In addition, the dissolved slutförvarsproblemet with significantly less volume and shorter period of time.
