The overall climate science in the form of the UN's intergovernmental panel on climate change IPCC and the international energy agency the IEA is clear that the need for an increased focus on nuclear power if we are to have a chance to reach 1.5-gradersmålet. ”To say ' no ' to nuclear energy is a luxury we cannot afford,” said the IEA's chief strategist Laura Cozzi when she launched the prestigious report World Energy Outlook in Sweden a couple of weeks ago.
that a future bet on nuclear power to be possible, required a wide popular acceptance. Today is different, the aid greatly between the sexes. According to an annual Novus-survey carried out on behalf of the analysis group to 57% of men build-out of nuclear power if necessary, while the corresponding figure for women is only 14 percent.
Nuclear energy is the power that causes the least number of deaths per unit of energy, even compared to renewable sources such as solar, wind and hydro power.
We believe that the resistance against nuclear energy is largely based on ignorance and exaggeration of the risks. Therefore, let us initiate an enlightened and fact-based discussion about nuclear power. There are four main arguments that speak for a new approach to nuclear power.
The two major nuclear accidents that have occurred, Chernobyl and Fukushima have taught us that the consequences of a nuclear accident is significantly less than what we previously thought. The accident in Fukushima, according to the world health organization have not resulted in any deaths from the radioactive release even if the economic and human consequences have been large.
According to the WHO, the accident in Chernobyl has so far claimed 43 lives, and between 160 and 9.000 additional deaths are expected because of an increased risk of thyroid cancer. These deaths are of course very serious but it is far fewer than the 200,000 deaths that several environmental organisations still spreading. That accident resulted in these deaths because the reactor lacked important safety equipment. With today's safety requirements had deaths are completely avoidable.
Despite these accidents, it is well documented that nuclear power is the power that causes the least number of deaths per unit of energy, even compared to renewable sources such as solar, wind and hydro power. 1975 dog over 170.000 people in China when the Banqiao dam burst. An accident that is unknown to most. The major culprit is coal power, which each year causes up to 800,000 premature deaths. By avoiding the use of fossil fuels, nuclear energy has globally saved millions of lives.
the Cost for new nuclear power is often compared with the cost of new wind power in order to make nuclear power as expensive and unprofitable. There are several problems with such a comparison. Onshore wind is very really one of the cheapest kraftslagen – when the wind blows. Nuclear power is planerbar and can produce electricity on demand when we need it most. Authority Swedish national grid expects that the hour of the year when we consume the most electricity producing nuclear energy at 90 percent of its capacity while wind and solar are producing 9% and 0%.
If the wind is not blowing or the sun isn't shining must the electricity is stored or produced on other way. Costs that must reasonably be included in the calculation for wind and solar to provide a fair comparison.
a Further problem is that the nuclear power projects used as a comparison is hand picked to get the worst possible outcome of nuclear power. Often used the latest reactor in Finland, Olkiluoto 3, which has been hit by major delays and cost far more than budget. At the same time are often discarded projects built on time and on budget. In many parts of the world builds new nuclear power for around 50 cents per kWh, about half the cost of reactor in Finland.
thus, It is possible to build a nuclear power cheap. Here can the nuclear industry learn a lot of wind and solkraftsindustrin that in a short time through standardized design managed to bring down the costs dramatically.
To solve global warming by excluding nuclear power and only invest in renewable energy will be more expensive. The cheapest solution look according to the research out to include a mix of nuclear and renewable sources. Exactly how the mix should look like depends on each country's unique conditions.
Nuclear power is one of the few sources that fully manages its own waste and all related costs and expenses. Fossil fuels spew out their waste – carbon dioxide and pollution straight into the atmosphere without having to pay anything. For solar energy and solar energy, which generates large amounts of hazardous waste per unit of energy – in particular heavy metals, there is still no plan or dedicated funding for the waste to be handled.
the nuclear Waste will be handled in a safe manner through geological disposal. In Finland there is already an ongoing construction of a repository in Sweden, it is the permit granting process in a final stage. The repository is considered to be very safe and to and with a in extremscenario – and with the Swedish Radiation safety authority has dismissed – where the copper capsules are going to break already after 300 years, it is estimated a radiation dose of 0.6 millisieverts at the surface. It is five times lower than the natural background radiation in Sweden.
In the debate we often hear that renewable energy can be built much faster than nuclear power. History shows the opposite. It is the countries that have built nuclear power, which has built out its fossil-fuel-free electricity generation is the fastest. Sweden is actually the country in the world in the shortest time have built out most fossil-free electricity production per person. It took place between 1976-86 then we increased the production by winning 51.7 TWh. If we compare it with today's focus on wind energy so we have the last ten years built out of 16.2 TWh, i.e. a third of the speed of nuclear power. The fastest is of course to build both nuclear and renewable, at the same time.
that has its foundation in the 70's folkkampanj. But climate change was not on the agenda at the time. As the climate has grown, and new facts about nuclear power's risks have been placed on the table, it is time to with a good conscience change the position and welcome nuclear power as a part of the common fight for a fossil free future.