Earlier posts
[2012-04-10] "Nuclear power, curse or salvation? I’ve been planning to write a reflection on nuclear power for quite some time but..."
>> Read more
[2010-03-16] "Water, just ordinary water is the introduction to a Swedish children song written by Lennart Hellsing and Lillebror Söderlundh and..."
>> Read more
[2010-02-14] "Climate"gate" or who in the world should one trust? The number of disturbing incidents involving the work of IPCC (the..."
>> Read more
[2010-01-21] "Devisen “låt hundra blommor blomma, låt hundra skolor debattera" må ha slutat i elände för dem som tog uppmaningen på..."
>> Read more
[2010-01-03] "In the flow of New Year chronicles and speeches it is not easy to find something that actually feels new..."
>> Read more
[2009-12-20] "Välkommen till Svanberg Bona Officia AB! Så är då äntligen hemsidan klar. Färdigställandet har tagit längre tid än planerat..."
>> Read more
Related links
www.swedishepa.se
www.swedishenergyagency.se
www.paperprovince.se
www.energysquare.se
www.skogsindustrierna.org
www.cepi.org
www.paperonline.org
|
|
Nuclear power, curse or salvation? I’ve been planning to write a reflection on nuclear power for quite some time but other things in life have gotten in the way.
Almost 13 months have now passed since the earthquake outside Japan on March 11 2011 caused a tsunami which hit the nuclear power plant in Fukushima with disastrous results.
The initial reports last year were reassuring all though the affected shoreline on the Japanese Island Honshu harbors over 20 nuclear reactors. The safety systems had closed down the reactors as soon as the ground started to shake. But the following tsunami made the cooling systems - an important safety detail to get rid of heat from residual radioactive activity which otherwise may lead to overheating and melting of the fuel rods, unworkable. A couple of hours later the Prime minister of Japan declared a nuclear emergency situation. Evacuation of citizens started and the affected zone was gradually increased from 3 to 20 km during the coming days. One week after the tsunami hit the coast sales of dairy and farming products from the area was stopped due to radioactivity. On April 20 the same was a fact for fish and seafood due to leakage of totally 10000 m3 of radioactive water into the sea. According to researchers at the University of Fukushima one million people now live in a zone where the radioactivity is dangerously high.
In Japan, as well as in other countries, the accident has had consequences. Germany decided already in May 2011 to phase out nuclear power (totally 9 reactors) by 2020, 95 % of the Italians said no to new nuclear plants in a referendum in June 2011 and in Japan only 3 out of 51 (or 2 out of 54 depending on which source I chose to trust) reactors are now in operation. EU has decided to stress test all reactors and the results will be ready in June this year. Preliminary indications are that we need to become better in handling extreme accidents (more mobile diesel generators, longer life time for break down filters etc).
More than 30 years ago, in 1980, Sweden held a referendum about the future of nuclear power where I voted No (Line 3). I can still remember the intense discussions with my father and uncles who were in favor of alternative 2=No but later and my (male) cousins who were, without the least hesitation, pro nuclear power and supported line 1. My reasons for saying no to nuclear power as a 22 year old activist in 1980 were many and as I’ve grown older some of them are not as relevant to me as they were then. I’m for instance no longer extremely worried about nuclear melt downs.
One issue which however still makes me hesitate to rely on nuclear power for our need of energy is the unsolved question regarding the resulting radioactive waste. In my opinion we, 2-3 generations, take the benefits from the production while we also, since it takes more than 100 000 years before the radioactivity has ceased and the waste has become harmless , leave the costs to more than 1500 coming generations. This is not a responsible attitude. Only in Sweden there is already 7000 tons of used nuclear fuel waiting for terminal storage and work has been going on since the 1970´s to find a suitable method. Despite that, the debate recently re-ignited on whether the proposed method (copper capsules in holes 500 m deep down into the rock filled with benthonite clay) is safe.
The ability to split atoms and extract energy is one of the more remarkable scientific achievements of the 20th century. But that doesn’t mean that it automatically fits into our social, political and economic conditions.
In all types of human activity we need to weigh benefits against risks and we do it all the time, often subconsciously. One reason for this technology to cause such profound debate is that it it’s not only a technical choice. This makes the risk assessment difficult. The technology touches upon deep philosophical questions such as i.e. how far my personal responsibility goes.
For me the answer on my initial question is that nuclear power is still more curse than salvation. But being an engineer I believe that we must continue to pursue research, primarily to find ways to handle the waste but also to minimize the risk for abuse of the technology or spreading of nuclear arms. Having said that I’m not closing the door to finding ways of using the nuclear fuel more efficiently either but with limited resources at hand I would put the money elsewhere. I favor renewable energy before climate neutral. – Johanna Svanberg |
