M and KD is right about nuclear power

It may be that the nuclear issue is the cold, hard, and technical. It still has the ability to tear up the feelings like few others. Therefore, it is no wonder that the series of announcements that the Christian democrats and the Conservatives indulged in recently turned up the political temperature by several degrees.

they Want to tear up the barely three-year-old energiuppgörelsen? The wonder suspicious socialists, the environment and centerpartister.

Ulf Kristersson and Ebba Busch Thor on the words in the article they publish on Wednesday's DN Debate, however, they do not leave the agreement, they want to update it. And they want to do is not unreasonable. You may assume that it was precisely for this to be possible, that the parties wrote in the agreement that an ”implementation team” will meet regularly to follow up on it.

Unreasonable, nor are the changes which the leaders of M and KD want to get to. The fact is that their proposals are best described as a recognition of how reality relates.

the target to 2040 100% to be ”renewable” electricity generation. For it to be fulfilled to the last the nuclear to be phased out, although it is also noted that this is not about a final date for inclusion in the use of nuclear energy.

M and KD want to instead have the goal of 100% ”zero carbon”. It is oh so hard to argue with.

Energiuppgörelsen was done at record speed because low electricity prices and high taxes have made nuclear power uneconomic. Vattenfall had decided to close down Ringhals 1 and 2, 3 and 4, is hung loosely, like the reactors in Forsmark and Oskarshamn. The settlement was a bailout of nuclear power, therefore, that in the short - and medium-term was the ability to replace its production of electricity in a climate-friendly and cost-effective manner.

Then fempartiuppgörelsen have kärnkraftsbolagen announced that they intend to implement the miljardinvesteringar required for Ringhals 3 and 4 and the reactors in Forsmark and Oskarshamn to be able to supply electricity well into the 2040's.

Why have a goal that will not be met? And no one want to be reached?

It makes you not to close them prematurely. Why have a goal that will not be met? And no one want to be reached?

the decommissioning of the Ringhals 1 and 2 will be reviewed is easy to sympathize with. When they shut lost a good bit of electricity, while demand is likely to increase in pace with both the transportation and industry is to be fossil-free.

but the Thing is that the Waterfall has taken its decision, and did not see any reason to change it, despite the fact that the deleted effektskatten already changed the business conditions.

as long As the increases are small, higher electricity prices not create panic. It strengthens the profitability of both nuclear power and renewable alternatives. And create incentives for energy efficiency improvements in industry and the public. So, it is also just a ”overview” of the prerequisites to pursue the nuclear power plant 1 and 2 M and KD want.

proper bet on nuclear energy research requires, however, no reservations. Energikommissonens report notes that it is difficult to make forecasts more than a couple of decades forward. What energy mix we will have after 2040 is therefore difficult to say.

One, however, is sure: We want to have as many fossil-fuel-free options as possible to choose from – it should include the safest, cheapest and cleanest form of nuclear technology.