Olov Holmstrand and Jan Lindholm writes in a letter to the editor of the DN Opinion on 18 march that nuclear power cannot save the climate. The undersigned would like to assert that no power can save the climate, but on all fossil-fuel-free sources interact, there is an opportunity to succeed.
the Challenge is too comprehensive to we a priori should dare us to add a tool to the side. It would, in this case with great certainty regret in the future.
Certainly it is so that the debaters, writes that nuclear is not completely fossil-free. As well as other fossil-fuel-free power is nuclear power dependent on the processes in society that have not yet switched over to zero carbon transport and material production.
has compiled studies on the life cycle emissions for different sources and shows that nuclear power gives rise to an approximately similar emissions (12 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour) hydropower (24 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour) and wind (12 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour) in a life cycle perspective.
When society goes against fossilfrihet will these life cycle emissions to reduce to zero, which is the crucial difference vis-à-vis fossil sources, which is located on the emission between 500 and 900 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour.
the IPCC makes assessments of what needs to be done to the objectives on a maximum of 1.5 or 2 degrees of global warming is to be achieved. They are clear that action is historically unprecedented, must come to the position that we should a chance to survive this.
all of the fossil-fuel-free sources, including nuclear power, with very strong growth in the main scenarios presented. So does the EU-commission in its long-term climate strategy, ”A clean earth for all”.
Holmstrand and Lindholm writes that nuclear power takes too long to build and, therefore, do not have something to contribute to climate change. It is true that some reaktorbyggen, mainly in the western world, have pulled out at time and cost. But countries such as China and south Korea have shown that it is possible to build new reactors quickly, in just over five years, which is also made in the western world, historically. Reasonably will the volumes of new nuclear power to rise and byggtiderna to fall, just as for solar and wind power.
in Addition, the type Holmstrand and Lindholm to the development of fourth generation nuclear power is slow. There is a tremendous potential in a type of power that can be born with already available and spent fuel, and in addition give the man in there is almost infinite amounts of scalable energy. Unfortunately do not have the need for this existed to a sufficient extent to any industrial product, have been developed.
is that there is so much cheap uranium available. But if the environmental impacts of the uranium production would become problematic in the future there is the possibility that these reactors can play an important role. Where, however, we are not in the day.
Holmstrand and Lindholm writes, wrongly, that the Land and environment court rejected the industry's proposal for final disposal. In the Land - and the court's opinion stated that the proposal for final disposal of spent nuclear fuel ”is admissible” given the fact that supplementary information be developed – a process that's going on. The Swedish radiation safety authority has already issued a positive opinion.
According to the UN expected global population increase to 10 billion by the year 2050. Add to this an elevated standard of living and a strong electrification of the society.
important, but often leads to an increased electricity demand. In order to have a chance to get rid of coal, we must use all available resources – including renewable and nuclear energy.