Dispute over nuclear power in Norway:
– What risk? It is not dangerous. I think it’s so strange that people draw up the risk picture. Even if you include accidents in nuclear power, there is no safer form of energy, says nuclear physicist Sunniva Rose.
-
Is nuclear power plants the solution to increasing power consumption in Norway?
Definitely, some people think. The surplus power disappears and nuclear power solves problems. Completely irrelevant, others think. It is an unacceptable energy source
-
Do we have anything to fear?
Those over 40 may remember the Chernobyl accident in 1986. Can such accidents happen again? Or are newer power plants so sure that even hydropower is more dangerous?
-
Environmental benefit?
What about the environmental benefits? Is nuclear power a green and renewable energy source or a waste-producing environmental waste?
-
Here you get the answers
In this article, we have asked these questions to nuclear physicist Sunniva Rose, NTNU professor Jan Emblemsvåg, the Nature Conservation Association’s leader Truls Gulowsen, Climate Friends for nuclear power and the head of Norway’s latest nuclear reactor, Ole Christen Reistad.
– Nuclear power is a natural companion to the green shift, says Jan Emblemsvåg who is a professor at NTNU. He is positive about nuclear power. The green shift presupposes more power-intensive industries such as data centers. Then the power surplus will disappear, he believes.
– Then we come to nuclear power.
– Why did we not start with that in Norway?
– Until now, we have not been in a situation where we have to ask ourselves critical questions about the way forward. I also think the media has been too uncritically focused on the disadvantages of old and outdated nuclear power such as Chernobyl. No one today would build something similar to the man built in the 80’s, he quickly says.
Nuclear power to Norway? – Yes absolutely
If we had the opportunity. Should Norwegians welcome a nuclear power plant?
– Yes absolutely. The need is absolutely present. What is certain is that we need more energy. Then the choice must fall on the energy source with the lowest footprint, says Steffen Sæle
He is a board member of Klimavenner for nuclear power, an association that has dedicated its work to creating acceptance for nuclear power in Norway. Sæle is a civil engineer specializing in security. He is convinced. Norway must invest in nuclear power.
He believes the use of resources, land and machinery is far lower than other energy sources.
What does available data say about this?
We have obtained data made available by geologist and geophysicist Jonny Hesthammer and Wouter Bell Gravendeel.
Do we have anything to fear?
Is there a risk associated with newer nuclear power plants?
– No. I can not see any risk elements, other than an almost theoretical character, says Emblemsvåg.
Here he meets strong opposition from the Nature Conservation Association.
Truls Gulowsen is the leader of the association. He believes that nuclear power is an unacceptable energy source, because it brings with it unsolvable waste management problems, he claims.
– There is such a great danger to the environment and people, Gulowsen quickly says.
He believes that the debate on nuclear power is too much influenced by what is technologically interesting, not what is achievable.
With today’s technology, nuclear power is neither cheap, safe nor fast.
– In what way is modern nuclear power unsafe?
– Older nuclear power plants are obviously unsafe. Then you can say that nuclear power plants built from the 90s until today have not had major problems. But it requires a security culture that is at an enormously high level. It can go wrong. We do not have that culture in Norway today. The risk of acute accidents is much less than what has been, but not absent, Gulowsen claims.
Gulowsen is supported by the man who was head of the country’s last nuclear reactor, Ole Christen Reistad. He was reactor manager at Kjeller before the plant was closed down in 2019.
– One must take into account that accidents can occur with these facilities. Chernobyl accidents are unlikely, as current facilities prevent radiation from escaping. Men, if you are going to start with a nuclear power industry, you have to accept the risk it entails. It is a choice, says Reistad.
Warns against EU divisions
The former reactor manager also believes that the disagreements in Europe give reason to be critical.
Reistad refers to the divisions in the EU as to whether nuclear power should be considered sustainable or not. If the EU decides that it is sustainable, the industry will have access to a number of favorable financing opportunities.
The strife is particularly strong between Germany, which claims it is unsustainable, and France on the other side.
– Predictability is very important in business and elsewhere. The lack of predictability in Norway related to Europe is one of the most important problems with nuclear power. There is a lack of unity and community in Europe here. Norway is not an isolated country in Europe, we must relate to others, Reistad adds.
Nuclear power enthusiasts still stand their ground. In practice, there are no major risk elements in modern nuclear power, according to Climate Friends for Nuclear Power.
– If a dam breaks, tens of thousands of people can come. If a modern reactor should burst, as they never do, this is still inside an artificial mountain, and no one will die, says board member Sæle in the association.
Sæle refers to the construction technique for newer nuclear power. They are built inside mountain halls or constructed halls reinforced with steel and concrete.
– The Fukushima accident demonstrated this. 20,000 people died from the tsunami, exactly zero died from radiation. After the accident, the reactors were still shut down, and energy production was mainly replaced by coal and gas power. This has led to approximately 30,000 new deaths, which result from air pollution, Sæle claims.
What do data and statistics say about nuclear mortality?
– If a reactor of a newer type smokes, exactly zero people will die, claims NTNU professor Emblemsvåg.
– I think we are too paralyzed by irrational fear in this country, he adds.
– Not dangerous
Nuclear physicist Sunniva Rose also believes that the risk element is exaggerated by opponents.
– What risk? It is not dangerous. I think it’s so strange that people draw up the risk picture. Even if you include accidents in nuclear power, there is no safer form of energy, she says quickly.
– A large group of people who are negative about nuclear power are negative because they do not know much about nuclear power, they just think it sounds scary. Many people believe that nuclear power is more deadly and climate-hostile than other forms of energy, but the opposite is true, Rose adds.
She also believes that the Nature Conservation Association’s leader overdramatizes the waste problem.
– Absolutely all energy production carries hazardous waste. Nuclear power is so enormously energy-dense, which is why the waste is also much smaller in relation to the energy produced, the nuclear physicist claims.
– This is fantasy land
There are obviously disagreements within the professional community about the risk picture as men of nuclear power. What about the environmental benefits? Is it high?
– One kilo of uranium or thorium produces about four million times more energy than coal. There are also huge emissions associated with solar cells and wind power, because it needs rare metals that are often mined in China. How renewable is a technology based on non-renewable metal, Emblemsvåg at NTNU asks rhetorically.
He believes the payoff is high. Nuclear power is even renewable, he claims.
– There is 4.6 billion tonnes of uranium in the seawater. Every year, approximately 16,000 tonnes of uranium are pumped into the seawater from the earth’s crust.
This statement makes Gulowsen in the Nature Conservation Association look red.
– This is fantasy land. There are no nuclear power reactors that run on uranium from seawater. It is also completely unlikely that it will be invested in commercially on a large basis. This is not a reality. The costs associated with this would also be extremely high and therefore low energy yield, says Gulowsen.
– These points from Emblemsvåg drive the debate out on the sidelines. I am shocked that he wants to pollute the discussion with such unrealistic perspectives. Then he must answer what timeline and cost and such recovery will require level, he continues.
– Yes, Emblemsvåg? Is it realistic?
– Yes, Japan, China and the USA are betting on this. The costs are somewhat higher than uranium mines. The cost analysis from the IAEA shows that the costs can be as low as the top price for Uranium in 2007. I think this is the solution in the short term, in 20 years, and then the nuclear power industry will be the only one that can produce without messing with the earth with major environmental damage , Emblemsvåg answers.
– The industrial basis is gone
One who is familiar with the nuclear reactor’s challenges is the country’s latest reactor manager, Ole Christen Reistad. He points in particular to two.
First, it is very expensive.
– A few years ago, the Swedes closed a reactor, for economic reasons. It has its origins in the fact that the price picture in Scandinavia is a little different than on the continent, says Reistad.
Secondly, we lack competence.
– The industrial basis for the construction of nuclear power in Europe is partly gone. The reactor that just opened in Finland is far overtime and far above cost. We do not have the knowledge here in Europe to design generation three reactors. They will in all probability be built in South Korea or China, because they are cheaper and safer, according to the former reactor manager.
Nuclear physicist Sunniva Rose cannot be persuaded by this argument.
– If we had said that when we found the oil in the North Sea, we would not have had such an industry today. This was something that had to be built up.
Jan Emblemsvåg at NTNU supports Rose.
– Politicians and industry were against the oil and gas adventure in their time. Think what it could cost us if they got their way, says the professor.
Emblemsvåg has no confidence that the politicians will turn the matter around. Therefore, the people must get to grips with the issue and invest.
– There is so much happening on nuclear power in the world. What I am afraid of is that all ideas will be patented before Norway comes on the scene at all. Then nuclear power can solve the power challenges, but we can not export our ideas, because we have to import them, the professor says.
Prefers energy efficiency
If we are not going to build nuclear power, but still accept that power consumption is increasing. So what is the alternative?
– The only measure that can deliver large amounts of power to the Norwegian power grid is a massive investment in triggering the energy saving potential of Norwegian buildings. This is the most important thing. There is 10-15 TWH available to invest in this, says Gulowsen in the Nature Conservation Association.
This means that we do not have to install new wind turbines, solar cells or new dams for some time to come.
– We need more energy, Rose answers.
– That energy must come from a source that is created without causing major damage to the climate and the environment. Then nuclear power comes out well, she adds.