Discussion post This is an introduction to the discussion, written by an external contributor. The publication expresses the opinions of the writer.
In addition, Holten uses terms such as unfiltered data from actors working on nuclear energy issues in Norway. As if that’s not enough, it also distorts the competence of the people who work on it. In this regard, I can tell you that the undersigned is just a person who followed the physics lessons in the science section of the gym very well.
In Holten’s post, there are some things I can’t quite put together. Mostly because some of the information seems like an attempt to blow up the waste problem with seemingly large numbers.
Nuclear energy is not a solution for Norway
We have operated nuclear reactors in Norway for 60 years (until 2018), and 17 tons of waste may seem like a large number. But nuclear waste is heavy and has a density factor of approx. 1.96. This gives a waste amount of 8.7 cubic metres. There’s room for that in a pickup truck. The waste is in a solid state and only five percent of the waste is highly active. This means that only 440 liters require safe storage.
The cost of NOK 25 billion to build a secure warehouse for such a small amount of waste is in itself unreasonable. Maybe this is not entirely true, and everyone understands that.
You want to build a nuclear power plant in Slajentangen: – Very bad idea
The experience is there
The fact that there is no experience in nuclear physics in Norway is also a straw man argument. After 60 years of operating reactors in Norway, someone was supposed to gain some experience. In addition, there are competency centers at NTNU and universities. I actually think these environments have a better starting point than they did when we started developing oil technology even in the 1960s and 1970s.
TB readers have spoken: We want a nuclear power plant in Tonsberg
Nuclear power plants with modern SMR technology are very efficient and have a small footprint. A reactor the size of a football field has a fixed capacity of 300 MW. This could provide electricity to the entire city of Vestfold and the largest cities in Telemark. In addition, large parts of Tønsberg can receive central heating.
This type of reactor contains much less waste than older technology. All the way up to the tenth. If we obtain thorium as fuel, Telemark has deposits that exceed our total oil resources by a factor of 100.
Politicians make Norwegians poorer
Energy consumption rises
I agree with you that we must continue to develop the oil sector. After all, we use 25% of the world’s oil production to make important materials. But eventually we have to stop burning gas and oil, because capturing and storing them is just another piece of the cake for “renewable energy enthusiasts.”
Back into the future
We can also talk about fennel until the eyes are dry. In 2023 alone, China’s energy production will increase by as much as Norway’s total energy production. Everything is coal. Energy consumption is increasing by six percent annually in the world. That’s 9,540 TWh, or approx. 60 times more than Norway’s total energy production.
In conclusion, I would like to wish Holten and the Environmental Protection Society good luck with the Enøk initiative!
“Explorer. Unapologetic entrepreneur. Alcohol fanatic. Certified writer. Wannabe tv evangelist. Twitter fanatic. Student. Web scholar. Travel buff.”