Debate, Nuclear Energy | Completely harmless discussion

Debate, Nuclear Energy |  Completely harmless discussion

boss This is a leader. The editor expresses the newspaper's position.

Lillehammer Business Association Iran tried to put nuclear energy on the regional agenda. The response is lukewarm.

We still see the effects After the explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986. On Norwegian territory, it was mostly a matter of contamination of grazing areas due to radioactive fallout. We've got cheap money, but we're still so affected that it continues to influence the debate about how to produce the new energy we need.

Read also

Nuclear energy in Lillehammer: – Why not?

Almost 40 years later Chernobyl, are there any discussions we should have? We must recognize that climate change has consequences, and we must recognize our part of the responsibility to try to slow the rise in temperatures.

We can make it more efficient Both production and distribution of electrical energy. We know that there is a lot that can be achieved through these measures, but it is not enough. We have to replace fossil energy with other energy. Wind energy is land-intensive. As well as solar energy. Currently, the Norwegian environmental debate is characterized by a strong focus on nature loss. In this discussion, land-intensive energy production is not a win-win situation.

there are many reasons Being skeptical or also skeptical about nuclear energy. It is also, for example, non-renewable. We are not concerned about the risk of accidents associated with the spread of radioactive materials, but access to raw materials and waste management are difficult topics in the discussion about nuclear energy.

See also  - We must not underestimate the Chinese - E24

Localization is disputed No matter what forms of energy we are talking about. Hardly anyone wants giant masts with wind turbines in the neighborhood, nor solar parks with panels covering large areas. New developments in hydroelectric power are still far from a non-issue, and we must therefore move away from fossil fuels. If we say no to everything else, nuclear power may eventually become the only option. At least the debate is completely harmless.

New energy production They should primarily be constructed near places with high energy demand. This area is a net source of energy. This means that Gudbrandsdalen will not be the first choice anyway. If at the same time we do not obtain other new jobs in other energy-intensive activities involved in the procurement process…

Hanisi Anenih

Hanisi Anenih

"Web specialist. Lifelong zombie maven. Coffee ninja. Hipster-friendly analyst."

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *