Nuclear Energy, Arabization | MDG politicians welcome the localization debate on nuclear energy

Book names are listed at the bottom of the corresponding post.

Our party colleague Einar Wilhelmsen He writes of nuclear energy as a source of energy in Norway in a column in Nettavisen. We are a number of Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) who think it is unfortunate that the newly elected energy policy spokesperson does not engage constructively with the Oslo project in their nuclear power proposal in Oslo.

This is the situation: Nuclear power in Norway? Get the local discussion popcorn of all time

Wilhelmsen’s main arguments are time and cost. Then he points out what the EU is doing and what we can do here and now. However, his premises in terms of time and cost are over-optimistic with respect to large-scale renewable production – and equally over-pessimistic with respect to nuclear power. When discussing what the EU is doing, it skips over the fact that The European Union Scientific Committee concluded that nuclear energy is at least as sustainable as renewable energy – and that many EU member states have now converted and will continue to invest in new nuclear energy.

We agree with Wilhelmsen that we must do everything we can here and now, such as investing in energy efficiency and the rapid development of rooftop solar. The issue of nuclear energy is not related to either or, but rather to both and. Southeast Norway (NO1) is the energy region with the largest energy deficit already today. We will need more energy in the future if we are to electrify all transportation and create a truly circular economy.

Read also: The Millennium Development Goals are required to adopt nuclear energy: – Like the oath in the Church

Wilhelmsen also based much of his analysis on the fact that nuclear power plants would not be able to compete with “normal” Norwegian prices. Winter electricity prices may not be the new normal, but we must bear in mind that we will have higher prices than before. Both Norway and Europe will start to run on electricity, in addition, none of this electricity will come from fossil energy.

Nuclear power is much cheaper than Wilhelmsen thinks. Swedish nuclear power costs about 50 øre per kWh, almost like small scale hydropower and bottomless offshore wind. Small solar more expensive. Floating offshore wind costs in comparison More than one kroner per kilowatt hour. That’s not to say we shouldn’t invest in all of these forms of energy, but costs are a bad argument against investing in nuclear power.

Click here to subscribe to newsletters from The Norwegian Discussion

There aren’t really good arguments left in 2022 for not including nuclear in Norway’s energy mix, and Oslo would probably be a great place for that.

The advantage of nuclear power in Oslo, or nearby, is that there is a short distance between production and the consumer, so we minimize the need for power lines (anyone remember the controversy over the brutal masts at Hardanger?). Another advantage is that the waste heat can be reused as local heating for city residents. Then you achieve a synergistic effect that almost doubles the effect you get from a nuclear power plant, since this area heating can replace a lot of electric heating.

Read also: We want nuclear power plants in Norway: – It should make us less dependent on gang countries

It is quite reasonable to assume that it will take 10-15 years before a nuclear power plant is built in Norway. But much of the blame for that, unfortunately, must be borne by us in the environmental movement. A number of environmental organizations have been working for decades to shut down Europe’s nuclear industry. Unfortunately, this partially worked and resulted in a loss of efficiency that takes time to rebuild. When opponents of nuclear power use the time it takes to build new facilities as an argument against nuclear power, they really have to thank themselves. Now expertise is on its way again and new facilities will be rebuilt faster.

In comparison, large-scale renewable development also takes time. For longer than Finland spent on Olkiluto 3 – Norway built it About 1300 turbines Which produces slightly less energy (about 11.8 TWh) than this one reactor produces (about 12-13 TWh).

Read also: How dangerous is nuclear power really?

For every single site discussion, you should therefore discuss the site of over 1,000 wind turbines. (And remember, you can put multiple reactors in the same plant.)

Wilhelmsen is absolutely right that the discussion of regionalization will take time. The advantage of nuclear power is that we can manage it with little to no localization debate, and then have enough power for decades to come.

There is also an exciting development within smaller modular nuclear power plants that can be mass-produced. For example, Rolls Royce (which has been making small nuclear power plants for 40 years, for nuclear submarines) has a small, serial-produced reactor ready for approval. When the reactor is approved (about 4-5 years), the first reactor can be ready After a few years.

Read also: Norway should contribute to research on nuclear energy

Implicit in Wilhelmsen’s job is the assumption that everyone is afraid of nuclear power, or ought to be. It is true that some are afraid of it, but this fear is unfounded then Modern nuclear energy is the safest form of energy in the world. With factual public information, people will also be reassured. So we must not forget the benefits of nuclear energy: who doesn’t want cheap electricity and neighborhood heating? Are jobs safe and well-paid?

It was more constructive to start this localization debate first and foremost rather than write it off beforehand.

Here’s why we’re doing it now: How about using an industrial site in Groruddalen? Or how about drilling a small Rolls-Royce power plant into the stable rock at the Klemetsrud recycling plant?

Then you can connect the cooling water from the power plant to the already existing mass district heating system, so that the recycling plant does not have to burn with oil when it does not have enough waste.

Read more of the Norwegian discussion

Or how about putting it soon Energy-intensive industry in Hiroyafor example in connection with the CO2 capture plant in Brevik which can thus Twice the amount of carbon dioxide we can actually capture?

Good discussion of localization!

—————————–

Bringar ArnvinsonLocal Team Leader Alna MDG

Lars Rizana member of the Oslo Millennium Development Goals

Joe Inge BuskinisGroup Leader Nice MDG

Looking for Dirkornlocal team captain Stovner MDG

Nils Anders Netsetergroup leader Bjørnafjorden MDG

Lina Solly Sala member of Skien MDG

Bjarne Hellesøea member of Bergen MDG

David HarstadRandaberg MDG member