(kd) gör en rimlig bedömning av kärnkraftens framtid

Göran Hägglund (kd) skriver på DN Debatt:

Förbudet mot nya reaktorer bör tas bort. Rimligt vore att ersätta befintliga reaktorer med nya. Vi älskar inte kärnkraften men inser att den under överskådlig tid kommer att vara viktig för vår elförsörjning. Vi kan inte räkna med att de förnyelsebara energikällorna räcker till om cirka 20 år då de nuvarande reaktorerna kommer att stängas av.

Detta är nog första gången som vi ser att en svensk politiker verkligen sätter fingret på grundproblemet i den svenska kärnkraftsfrågan: kärnkraft kan inte ersättas med förnybart, för vi har inga garantier att förnybart kommer att räcka till.

Motståndare till kärnkraft hävdar att förnybara kraftkällor, i Sverige då i första hand vind och vattenkraft, kommer att kunna ersätta kärnkraften. Men detta är osäkra kort. Vattenkraften är fullt utbyggd och finns det någon fråga som är heligare i Sverige än kärnkraften så är det älvarna. Det är inte rimligt att anta att vi kommer att kunna bryta exploateringsförbudet av älvarna.

Vindkraft är då ett alternativ. Men vind, om än ungefär lika miljösnål per producerad kilowatt-timme som kärnkraft, har ett inneboende problem: när det inte blåser har man ingen kraft.

En graf över producerad vindkraft i Sverige under 30 dagar. Teoretiskt max är 16 800 MWh/dag
En graf över producerad vindkraft i Sverige under 30 dagar. Teoretiskt max är 16 800 MWh/dag

Bilden ovan är hämtad från vindstat.nu, och motsvarar originalet i skrivande stund. Som mest kan man idag av svensk vindkraft få 16 800 MWh per dygn (bilden går upp till 14 000 MWh).  I går låg produktionen på ca 4% av max; dagarna innan det ännu lägre. Vi vet inte från dag till dag vad vindkraften kommer att producera. Vi vet inte ens från timme till timme. Detta är uttryckligen vad Göran Hägglund skriver: "vi har inga garantier att det kommer räcka till".

En energikälla som när den själv känner för det levererar så lågt som 3% av installerad effekt är inte pålitlig, och ingeting vi kan bygga ett helt lands kraftförsörjning på.

Och detta är inte vindkraftens enda nackdel heller. Som vi har skrivit om tidigare är vindkraft en mardröm för kraftnäten därför att den är lynnig till sin natur, vilket gör styrning svårt och riskerar att kollapsa elnäten med mycket stora strömavbrott som följd. För att klara av att basera vår kraftförsörjning på vindkraft måste vi i princip slänga ut hela elnätet och bygga nytt. Och hur dyrt kommer det att bli? Med tanke de bökiga miljökrav som gäller att få bygga nya kraftledningar så är det frågan om detta ens är möjligt med mindre än att kraftbolagen nästan ges fritt spelrum att köra över lokalbefolkningen vid ledningsdragning. Om inte enklare regler och förkortad tillståndsprocess kommer till stånd kan kraftbolagen aldrig ta på sig den kostnad som det innebär att förnya elnätet.

Vi kan alla önska oss en framtid där vi inte behöver kärnkraftverk, eller klarar oss utan vattendammar som riskerar att kollapsa och dränka hela städer. Men vi måste också vara realistiska och börja räkna på saker och ting för att se om de räcker till eller inte. (kd) har nu gjort det. Och siffrorna ljuger inte: förnybart har inga garantier för att klara vår kraftförsörjning. Alltså måste vi inkludera ett alternativ som klarar av att leverera, samt lever upp till miljökraven: kärnkraft.

Sålunda välkomnar vi detta beslut av (kd). Kärntekniklagen 5§ måste ändras. Förbudet att bygga nya reaktorer i Sverige skall tas bort, för att säkra vår energiförsörjning.

Läs även om detta i SvD, Aftonbladet.

The Forsmark incident was not Chernobyl

This is the second blog response to a blog entry made by The King of the country Lagom. The previous entry dealt with his claims that opinions are sacred and how one must not speak up against them. This entry will deal with the purely factual errors of his claims about nuclear power.

The King of Lagom claims that an incident that took place in 2006 at the Forsmark nuclear power plant could have escalated into a Chernobyl-type accident.  Well... first he says that, and then he says it could have become something entirely different. If this sounds confusing it is because the King of Lagom probably doesn't quite know what he's talking about but rather builds this statement on misconceptions about what actually happened at Chernobyl and Forsmark respectively. So let's examine the incidents and compare.

The 1986 Chernobyl accident

April 26, 1986. The night shift at reactor 4 at the V.I Lenin Nuclear power plant, 20 km north west of the town of Chernobyl, Ukraine, has been ordered to do a test. Due to operator error, they accidentally poison the RBMK-type reactor which makes it almost grind to a halt. They don't know why the reactor is giving so little power though because they were mostly coal plant workers, inexperienced with nuclear power, and oblivious to things such as nuclear poisoning. The shift boss, determined to finish the test, gives orders to proceed, telling the operators to perform actions that go against several operating rules of the reactor. This puts the reactor in an unstable state.

When the test is finished and they shut down the reactor, a fatal flaw in the reactor's control system causes the reactivity to spiral out of control, making it output between ten to onehundred times normal thermal effect. The water in the reactor flash boils and the enormous steam pressure blows the building apart. A few seconds later a chemical explosion, when water that has been split into hydrogen and oxygen burns, rocks the complex again. The reactor is on fire for ten days, resulting in a large plume of radioactive fallout.

There are several factors that allowed this accident to happen.

First it was operated by poorly educated personnel, in a political system where safety came second. In the Soviet Union, you did not rise to attractive jobs like this one by being good at your craft but by kissing up to the communist party. Also you did not stay at jobs like this by speaking up against safety issues, because such things made the party look bad. For instance this particular test was supposed to have been run years ago when the plant was commissioned. But since it failed back then, it had to be done again, this time in secret from the Soviet nuclear regulatory authorities.

This shouldn't have been a problem. But the second reason the accident could take place was the deliberate violations of the operating rules of the reactor. The test was to have taken place when the reactor was outputting at least 700 MW; they started when it was at 200 MW. They were not allowed to withdraw more than a certain number of control rods; they withdrew almost all of them. They were not allowed to increase water flow in the reactor past a certain amount when operating at low power; they did. They were not allowed to disengage the safety systems that would have shut down the reactor when they did any of the aforementioned; but they did indeed disable them.

All of this made reactor come into an unstable state that let its most critical design flaw come into play: the positive void coefficient. The void coefficient is a quality in a nuclear reactor that tells us what happens when it gets too hot. When coolant boils in a reactor that has a positive void coefficient, the nuclear reaction increases. This makes the reactor hotter, which makes more water boil. This speeds up the reaction more, making it even hotter... and so forth. And not only was the void coefficient in the RBMK-reactors of the Chernobyl plant positive, it was also dangerously high.

Finally, because the reactor had no real core vessel, nor any concrete containment, the force of the explosion wrecked the building completely. A fire started in the hundreds of tons of graphite that was in the reactor. Also the building itself that was supposed to have been made from fireproof material, was not, and the debris caught fire as well.

This is what is known as a criticality accident, when the nuclear reaction goes out of control. In this case it produced so much heat that the entire reactor blew up from all the thermal energy. This accident was not a nuclear meltdown.

The 2006 Forsmark incident

July 27, 2006. At the switch-yard for Forsmark-1, an electrical arc causes a short circuit which leads to the unit being disconnected from the power grid. This is serious as the plant relies on power to keep all pumps going.

If a nuclear reactor does not have working pumps, eventually the cooling water in the reactor will boil away. If that starts to happen you must engage the emergency core cooling, reserves of water kept for this very purpose. If this too fails and the reactor boils dry, the heat can be such that the reactor core becomes damaged, popularly called a meltdown. This can happen even when the nuclear reaction has been stopped because decay heat continues to be produced a few hours after a reactor is shut down as very short-lived nuclear waste falls apart. This is what happened at Three Mile Island in 1979.

So when a nuclear plant becomes disconnected from the power grid, the reactor is shut down and on-site diesel generators start to provide power for the pumps to deal with the decay heat, and this was what happened at Forsmark 1. However in this case, two out of the four diesel generators did not start, disabling two safety trains out off four. But the two remaining diesel generators were more than enough to drive the pumps. Hence the reactor was cooled and emergency core cooling was not necessary. The reactor shutdown proceded normally.

Similarities?

No, there are no similarities between these two incidents. The Chernobyl disaster was the case of a criticality accident that caused an extremely violent explosion that completely wrecked the reactor core; the building it operated in; burned for days. The Forsmark incident was the case of  slight degradation of safety features while the reactor and its cooling operated normally. The cooling system was operational the whole time; the emergency cooling did not need to be engaged; the reactor core was not damaged; the reactor tank was in no way threatened; the over one meter thick reactor contaiment remained perfectly safe. And fire? Naw... there is no graphite in Forsmark-1. Water handles that job instead.

So when the King of Lagom says that the Forsmark incident could have become another Chernobyl, he is wrong. There is no way that Forsmark-1 or any of the other Swedish nuclear reactor could undergo the process that led to the explosion in Ukraine in 1986. And this is not just because we employ people that know what they are doing; care about safety first; follow procedure; don't do things behind the back of the nuclear regulatory authorities. No, the most important reason why a Chernobyl-type criticality accident cannot happen in Sweden is the reactors themselves. Because unlike the RBMK-reactors of the Soviet Union, our boiler- and pressurized water reactors do not have a positive void coefficient. We did it the opposite way, so that when water starts boiling in the reactor, the nuclear reaction slows down because of inescapable laws of physics. It's nature's own choke collar on nuclear reactions.

Conclusion

The RBMK-type of reactor was employed only in the Soviet Union. The international community is working hard to get the twelve RBMK's that are still in operation closed. Even though I'm a nuclear friend I'm not an idiot, and as such I am very glad that one of the remaining RBMK's. Ignalina-2, will be shut down in 2009, meaning that Lithuania no longer operates them. Now we just need to get Russia to shut down theirs and we'll finally be rid of this blight.

When discussing nuclear safety, anyone that uses Chernobyl as an example of what could go wrong in nuclear reactors is ignoring reality. The BWR/PWR reactors of the world hold about as much in common with the RBMK-design of the Soviet Union as does slavery to common work; as does forced child soldiers to commissioned adults. There just is no comparing them as they operate differently down to subatomic level.

The Forsmark incident was not, and could not have become, another Chernobyl. This is not an opinion, it is physical reality.

/Michael

ADDENDUM: As I posted a link to this entry in his blog,  and called him on his Ad hominem attacks, he first approved the entry, then he cencored it and claimed that I was violating his right to have "free opinions", i.e. he doesn't want anyone telling him he's wrong.

The right to call your opinion a load of fetid dingo's kidneys.

Je déteste ce que vous écrivez, mais je donnerai ma vie pour que vous puissiez continuer à écrire!

The saying above - I detest that which you write, but I would give my life for you to be able to continue writing - is often attributed to Volatire. Unfortunately it does not show up in any of his works nor in his letters and is most likely misattributed. However no quote better encapsulates these fundamental principles: Freedom of Opinion, and Freedom of Expression.

A person - calling himself The King of the country Lagom - recently blogged about some comments I made to one of his earlier blog entries. Since the blog entry in question was in Swedish, I have provided you with a translation.

The King of Lagom says that I am "not respecting other people's opinions", that I am "forcing my opinions on them", that I think my own opinions are the only ones right, while everyone else's is wrong. This isn't exactly the first time someone has accused me of this. Let me break down the criticism in parts.

"He thinks he is right"

Isn't this one a complete no-brainer? Would I be expressing an opinion if I thought it was wrong? Is that what the King of Lagom does; expressing opinions he doesn't think are right?

"He is forcing his opinions on others"

This one is just plain silly. I do not have brainwashing powers. Nor am I versed in suggestive hypnotism, subliminal HTML, or mind control. And to the best of my knowledge I have yet to seek out someone out with a baseball bat and go "Hold this opinion, or else!".

I cannot "force" anyone to hold any kind of opinion, nor do I have any interest in it. If by "forcing" he means that I respond to people's opinions with some of my own, he's throwing rocks in a glass house.  

"He is not respecting other people's opinions"

In subjective matters, I don't say that I am right and everyone else is wrong. That's for kids to do, saying "Britney/Kate Perry/Nine Inch Nails is best and everyone that doesn't agree is stupid!". I don't discuss subjective opinions because there is nothing to discuss. I know what I like and if someone else likes other things, that's their own lookout.

However when it comes to objective issues, we are not dealing with matters of preference any more. If someone is going around saying that a Swedish BWR/PWR reactor can explode like a Soviet-built RBMK reactor, then are talking about something completely different. The King of Lagom however thinks that I am engaging in some kind of misconduct when I tell people that the laws of physics do not approve of their opinions. So basically he says I'm "not respecting his opinion" when I speak up against statements that are equivalent of claiming the Earth is flat.

People like The King of Lagom confuse the concept of respecting their right to hold and express opinions with being forbidden to speak up against them. This is of course wrong. I have my own right to hold and express opinions. And if I am of the opinion that what someone said is a load of fetid dingo's kidneys, then I am in no way obliged to "respect" their silly statement by not uttering those very words.

The person vs. the person's opinions

Reading the blog entry again I see that The King of Lagom has a very rude manner. He is hurling all sorts of insults and abuse my way. He acts as if a person is the same thing as that person's opinions. This would explain why he is so upset, because I speak out against his opinions and this he takes as a personal insult. He acts as if I have said mean things about him personally simply because I showed that his arguments does not hold up to science or facts.

This again is a matter of mixing up things and missing important nuances. I have no idea who the King of Lagom is as a person, nor do I care because this is not important. What matters is the things he says. I will never attack a person's character in the way the King of Lagom did. Not only is it poor style and rude, but it also hints very strongly that the person has run out of factual arguments for their case. I used to include insults a long time ago when I first entered the Internet. I have since grown up and stopped using character attacks.

However...

I will attack a person's opinions, arguments and statements, and rip them to shreds if I think I have due cause for it. This is my right and I intend to exercise it. Just like in the expression above, even if I do respect their rights to voice opinions, I also have the right to say that I truly detest the things that they write. If this offends The King of Lagom, or any other person whose opinions I comment, that's solely their own problem.

Opinionated people who are not prepared to deal with others expressing opinions of their own are not advised to engage in a discussion to begin with.

If you can't take the heat, the kitchen door is at your disposal.

/Michael

ADDENDUM: there is a second blog entry that deals with the factual errors of The King of Lagom's blog entry. And even though I called him on using Ad hominem attacks, he is not stopping. The man just keeps on trying to insult me and dodge the subject.

Göran Bryntse är på gång igen

Dags att såga ännu en artikel av Göran Bryntse, ordförande för folkkampanjen mot kärnkraft. Bryntses artikel hittar man här "Kärnkraften skadar klimatet" och som vanligt med folkkampanjen så glider en hel del suspekta saker in.

Bryntse skriver

"Det är en myt att kärnkraften är klimatneutral. Då bortses från kärnkraftens mycket koldioxidutsläppande livscykel inkluderande uranbrytning och anrikning. Även kärnkraftens avfallshantering kräver mycket energi, avfallet måste ju kylas i minst 40 år. En aktuell rapport på 40 sidor med 117 vetenskapliga referenser från det mycket välrenommerade Stanforduniversitetet i USA, publicerad i tidskriften Energy & Environmental Sciences, anger utsläppsnivån 66 gram CO2/kWh för kärnkraft, vilket kan jämföras med vindkraftens 11 g/kWh. Rapportförfattaren, professor Mark Jacobsson, räknar då med ett medelvärde från 103 vetenskapligt granskade livscykelanalyser."

Artikeln som Bryntse  refererar till återfinns i sin helhet på denna länken. Det är ett utmärkt exempel på skräpforskning, vetefan hur något så mediokert ens lyckas publiceras. Avsnitt 2h tex demonstrerar att Jacobsson inte direkt har grepp om hur kärnkraft fungerar. Men det roligaste kommer i avsnitt 4d när Jacobsson uppskattar koldioxidutsläppen orsakade av pga kärnvapenkrig! Sen kopplar han helt godtyckligt de utsläppen till kärnkraft utan att på något sätt motivera hur kärnkraft skulle vara ansvarig för ett sådant spekulativt krig. Enda motivationen verkar vara detta. 
 
"Because the production of nuclear weapons material is occurring only in countries that have developed civilian nuclear energy programs, the risk of a limited nuclear exchange between countries or the detonation of a nuclear device by terrorists has increased due to the dissemination of nuclear energy facilities worldwide."

" This emission rate depends on the probability of a nuclear exchange over a given period and the strengths of nuclear devices used. Here, we bound the probability of the event occurring over 30 yr as between 0 and 1 to give the range of possible emissions for one such event as 0 to 4.1 g CO2 kWh−1. This emission rate is placed in context in"

Är det bara jag som tycker den argumentationen är oerhört tunn? Först handviftar han fram påståendet att bara länder med civil kärnkraft producerar vapenmaterial(vilket inte stämmer, se tex Israel). Sen hittar han på ett scenario med ett begränsat kärnvapenkrig och sätter en sannolikhet för att det ska ske inom 30 år. Efter det beräknar han co2 utsläppen från kärnvapenkriget pga brinnande storstäer, viktar utsläppen med sannolikheten för kriget och adderar utsläppen till civila kärnkraftens utsläpp. Men han skissar inte på något sätt upp ett orsakssamband mellan civil kärnkraft och vapenmaterial. Han kan helt enkelt inte förklara hur civil kärnkraft är skyldig till kärnvapenkriget.

Han nämner inte heller att varenda land som idag har kärnvapen skaffade vapenmaterial först, och civila elproducerande reaktorer i efterhand. Inget land i världen har använt civila elproducerande reaktorer för att producera vapenmaterial. Det finns ingenting som berättigar det sätt han kopplar kärnvapenkrig till kärnkraft. 

För att gå vidare, Jacobsson summerar sina resultat i sektion 4a tabell 3. 

Table 3 Equivalent carbon dioxide lifecycle, opportunity-cost emissions due to planning-to-operation delays relative to the technology with the least delay, and war/terrorism/leakage emissions for each electric power source considered (g CO2e kWh−1). All numbers are referenced or derived in ESI  


   

 

 

Technology  


Lifecycle  


Opportunity cost emissions due to delays  


War/terrorism (nuclear) or 500 yr leakage (CCS)  


Total  


Solar PV 19–59 0 0 19–59
CSP 8.5–11.3 0 0 8.5–11.3
Wind 2.8–7.4 0 0 2.8–7.4
Geothermal 15.1–55 1–6 0 16.1–61
Hydroelectric 17–22 31–49 0 48–71
Wave 21.7 20–41 0 41.7–62.7
Tidal 14 20–41 0 34–55
Nuclear 9–70 59–106 0–4.1 68–180.1
Coal-CCS 255–442 51–87 1.8–42 307.8–571

    

 

 

 

Vi ser här att största utsläppskällan för kärnkraft är "Opportunity cost emissions due to delays".Vad är detta då? Jacobsson förklarar det såhär i sektion 4b

"The investment in an energy technology with a long time between planning and operation increases carbon dioxide and air pollutant emissions relative to a technology with a short time between planning and operation. This occurs because the delay permits the longer operation of higher-carbon emitting existing power generation, such as natural gas peaker plants or coal-fired power plants, until their replacement occurs. In other words, the delay results in an opportunity cost in terms of climate- and air-pollution-relevant emissions."

"We assume that after the first lifetime of any plant, the plant is refurbished or retrofitted, requiring a downtime of 2–4 yr for nuclear, 2–3 yr for coal-CCS, and 1–2 yr for all other technologies. We then calculate the CO2e emissions per kWh due to the total downtime for each technology over 100 yr of operation assuming emissions during downtime will be the average current emission of the power sector. Finally, we subtract such emissions for each technology from that of the technology with the least emissions to obtain the opportunity-cost CO2e emissions for the technology. The opportunity-cost emissions of the least-emitting technology is, by definition, zero. Solar-PV, CSP, and wind all had the lowest CO2e emissions due to planning-to-operation time, so any could be used to determine the opportunity cost of the other technologies."

För kärnkraft så antar han att det tar 10-19 år från planering till reaktorn startas.

Jag förmodar att han räknar såhär. Vi börjar planera för en 1GW reaktor idag, om 10-19 år står den färdigbyggd och under de 10-19 åren så används tex 1GW kolkraft (eller mer korrekt den blanding av energikällor som för närvarande finns) istället. Utsläppen under de tio åren pga kolkraften tar han sen och lägger till på kärnkraftens utsläpp minus de utsläpp som hade skett ifall man använder den energikälla med lägst utsläpp istället.  
Oppertunity cost emissions är alltså inte riktiga utsläpp från kärnkraftens livscykel, det anger han själv som 9-70 gram. Nej oppertunity cost emissions är ett 100% fiktivt utsläpp som sker eftersom han antar att andra energikällor kan byggas betydligt snabbare. Men det verkar som han gör flera väldigt bedrägligt antagande här i sina beräkningar. 
Misstag 1. För en stor "vindkraftsfarm", stor är > 15 MW i hans fall, anger han en planerings till drift period på 2-5 år. Men han kan väll rimligtvis inte mena att det tar lika kort tid att bygga en vindfarm på 4-5 GW som det gör att bygga en på 15 MW? Det är avsevärt mer komplicerat att hitta plats, få tillstånd och bygga tusentals vindsnurror jämfört med tiotals. Om han använder siffrorna 2-5 år för en godtyckligt stor vindkraftsfarm så kan han få hur orealistisk bra siffror som helst. Jag ser heller ingenting i verkligheten som antyder att det är snabbare att bygga säg 10 GW vindkraft än det är att bygga 10 GW kärnkraft. I första fallet handlar det om 30 000 1 MW vindkraftverk om vi ska ha 10 GW i årsgenomsnitt medans det bara handlar om 7-10 reaktorer. Sett över 30-50 år kan man mest troligt bygga ut kärnkraften mycket mer än vindkraften.
Misstag 2. Han ignorerar till synes helt vad som sker när vinden inte blåser eller solen inte lyser. Oavsett hur man vrider och vänder på det så har vind och sol vansinnigt låg tillgänglighet som för det mesta inte matchar efterfrågan. För de länder som inte har vattenkraft så kommer gasturbiner vara billigaste och enklaste backupen till vind och sol. Varför inkluderar han inte backup utsläppen till vindkraftens utsläpp? Jacobsson baserar oppertunity cost emissions i sina beräkningar enbart på "downtime" som beror på planering och konstruktion. Men ska man använda hans metod på riktigt sätt ska downtime även inkludera kapacitetsfaktor. En vindkraftspark med en livstid på 30 år har trots allt en "downtime" på 21 år! 
Misstag 3. Det är fel att anta att om man tar i drift X antal MW förnybar energi eller kärnkraft så kommer det genast ersätta X antal MW fossil energi. Den verklighet vi har att göra med är att de kraftverk som finns mest troligt kommer rulla på tills deras driftstid är slut, för det finns egentligen ingen billigare energi än från kraftverk som redan är byggda. Ingen kommer bygga varken vindsnurror eller kärnkraft med syftet att ersätta fungerande kolkraftverk som har många år kvar. Det vore fantastiskt om man gjorde det, men så kommer inte ske. Det som måste förhindras är att nya fossila kraftverk byggs och att de som tas ur drift ersätts med kärnkraft eller förnybar energi. Nya anläggningar kommer naturligtvis planeras så att de tas i drift samtidigt som ny kapacitet behövs för att ersätta gamla anläggningar. Det trasar helt sönder hela hans "oppertunity cost emissions" siffor, världen fungerar inte så som han antar.
Det var nog om Jacobssons artikel åter till Bryntse

"Dessutom vräker de svenska kärnkraftverken ut enorma 130 miljarder kilowattimmar varmvatten i havet varje år, något som också bidrar till klimatets uppvärmning enligt studier av prof. Nordell vid Luleå Tekniska Universitet."

Bryntse ignorerar behändigt att det inte verkar finnas någon i hela världen som tar Nordell /1 på allvar och att hans publikationer fått allvarlig kritik. Gumble et al /2 och Covey et al /3 trasar totalt sönder Nordell. Man behöver intekunna  mycket fysik för att inse att Nordells artikel är skräp. Det åår liksom inte att bara ignorera konvektion och diffusion i atmosfären, så som Nordell gör, och sen tro att de resultat man får har med verkligheten att göra. Precis som med Jacobssons artikel är det i mina ögon ett mirakel att Nordells artikel publicerades. Det lustigaste med att Bryntse nämner Nordell är att Nordell lanserar sin teori i strid mot att co2 orsakar uppvärming. Så om Bryntse tror på Nordell, varför nämner han ens då co2 i sin artikel? Typiskt exempel på intellektuell ohederlighet, Bryntse griper gärna tag i vilket halmstrå som helst, oavsett hur absurda, bara för att försöka svartmåla kärnkraft. 

Brynte skriver vidare

"Jacobsson kommer fram till att ny kärnkraft, jämte kolkraft, är det sämsta valet för att bekämpa klimatförändringen. Lägger man dessutom till vad det skulle kosta att hjälpligt återställa urangruveområden så att det går att leva där i framtiden samt beaktar att urangruvor med allt lägre uranhalter snart måste användas så har en holländsk kärntekniker, van Leeuven, kommit fram till att koldioxidutsläppen kan bli över 100 gram CO2/kWh."    

Vilket tar mig till tredje kalkonvarningen, nämligen van Leeuwen. Till skilland från de två artiklarna som nämns ovan så har van Leeuwens "forskning" inte ens publicerats. Kort och gott, skiten är inte nog bra för att ens kunna klara en rudimentär granskning. Applicerar man van Leeuwens modell för energiåtgång vid uranbrytning(vilket ger upphov till majoriteten av de 100 gram/kWh han påstår) på existerande urangruvor idag så ser man att han överskattar energiåtgången. Men han överskattar inte den bara med det dubbla, nej han överskattar det med en faktor 80!! För en genomgående kritik av van Leeuwens rön och repliker från van Leeuwen själv se denna länken, "Energy lifecycle of nuclear power".
På nått sätt är det lite roligt att se Bryntse skriva dessa artiklar. För det demonstrerar på ett ypperligt sätt vilka opålitliga källor kärnkraftsmotståndarna måste kräla till för att kunna hitta något att försöka smutskasta kärnkraften med. Mindre underhållande är att många läsare säkert tar för givet att Bryntse, då han är teknologie doktor, alls vet vad han pratar om.

2. J. Gumbel T, H. Rodhe "Comment on "Thermal pollution causes global warming" by B. Nordell [Global Planet. Change 38 (2003), 305–312]", Global and Planetary Change 47 (2005) 75 – 76

3. Curt Coveya,*, Ken Caldeiraa, Martin Hoffertb, Michael MacCrackena, Stephen H. Schneiderc, Tom Wigleyd "Comment on "Thermal pollution causes global warming" by B. Nordell [Global Planet. Change 38 (2003), 305–312]", Global and Planetary Change 47 (2005) 72 – 73

This... is an ex-parrot!!

Let me indulge myself in a bit of personal commentary for a moment and convey my frustration about debating nuclear power. When browsing the sheets, TV-programs and the web, I as a nuclear friend more often than not run into absurdities so staggering it leaves me wondering if this is reality or some really tripped out stage comedy.

The latest act in this Circus Macabre is Christer Borg, who in a recent blog entry argues against nuclear power with arguments so false I am relating to John Cleese's character in the famous parrot sketch: Mr. Praline is faced with a salesman who won't admit that the parrot he just sold is definitely deceased. The man behind the counter keeps arguing his fraudulent case with ever more ridiculous arguments until eventually he's trying to convince the customer that the stuffed Norwegian Blue parrot is not dead but "pining for the fjords".


Video provided kind courtesy of Monty Python

Let me show you what I mean... Christer Borg says:

A wrecked reactor is as deadly to all life as it was when Three Mile Island or the Chernobyl disasters took place.

Bringing up Chernobyl in discussions about  Swedish reactors, or any light-water moderated reactor for that matter since its the most prevalent reactor type in the world, is absolutely silly. If we chose to ignore the fact that the comparison requires an act of God, where He gets devilishly drunk and in a stupor goes on to rewrite the laws of physics, the death toll from the accident itself does not even reach 100 people yet.  Anyone arguing differently had best take it up with the UN.

"This parrot is no more!"

Three Mile Island is slightly more relevant to talk about because that concerned a reactor type that actually exists outside the former Soviet Union, as opposed to the accident prone RBMK-type of reactor that blew up at Chernobyl. But the argument is still trying to assert the vitality of a bleedin' demised parrot because the accident at TMI-2 left us with zero dead, zero injured and zero cancer cases. Why does Borg, when he wishes to speak against nuclear power, bring up an event which tells us that even when suffering a nuclear meltdown the safety measures of a western reactor works and prevents death and injury?

"It has ceased to be!"

Borg continues...

The issue of storing nuclear waste is as unresolved as it was thirty years ago.

This argument tries to ignore thirty years of research and development in the area, not to mention 1.7 billion years of geological truth.  The invalidity of the argument is laid bare the moment you step onto the homepage of SKB, Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB. SKB selects the site to build the Swedish deep geological repository in 2009. The year after that they hand in their application to the authorities seeking permission to begin work constructing the repository using the KBS-3 method, validated by science and Mother Nature in her very own experiment into nuclear waste storage.

"It's expired and gone to meet its maker!"

Borg: Operating nuclear reactors is as difficult as before.

OK, so if we again ignore reality, such as the extremely low accident rate compared to other sources of power and the lack of injuries resulting from nuclear power, his argument tries to deny the fact that design criteria for modern nuclear reactors specify them to be "Walk away safe". That is to say a modern nuclear reactor remains safe even if all of the operators simply walk away from the controls. I know of few other human activities that would allow that sort of abuse. And this did not exist thirty years ago.

"It's a stiff! Bereft of life. It rests in peace!"

Borg: Uranium mining is a detrimental to the environment as it has always been.

Again Borg tries to ignore progress and reality. To illustrate how silly his argument is: the radiation dose that a Swedish iron ore miner received in the LKAB mines in the 70's was twenty times that which an Australian uranium miner receives today. I can concede the fact that back in the last century uranium mining was no picnic. But then again that was the case for all mining. And today the situation is different as all mining, including uranium mining is subject to the same kind of environmental requirements as everyone else. Trying to claim nothing has changed is nearly too stupid for words, but Borg somehow manages to utter them with a straight face. I simply don't know how he does it. Overdosing on Botox perhaps?

"If you hadn't nailed it to the perch it would be pushing up the daisies!"

Borg: The centralization of this extremely dangerous activity...

"It's run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible!"

...makes it as perfect as before for callous and desperate terrorists.

...which is to say: bloody useless. A nuclear power plant is an unattractive target for terrorists. This case we have covered before here at Nuclear Power Yes Please in our last article "Wind power increases vulnerability to terrorism". Quick recap: distributed power, as endorsed by Borg, shifts our vulnerability from the resilient and easily defendable nuclear power plants to the network grid that is made fragile by distributed and fickle power sources such as wind.

"This... is an ex-parrot!"

As you can surely understand arguments such as those presented by Christer Borg leave me wondering what kind of reality some people live in. There just isn't any truth to his claims. Anyone with a web browser and half a pint of sense can verify that his argument is a load of fetid dingo's kidneys. How does he expect that anyone will not notice the gaping cracks in his anti-nuclear facade?

I'll leave you with the only piece of sense to come out of his ridiculous article... one that I think he in retrospect ought to feel really embarassed about having put there as it perfectly describes the futility of his behaviour:

A lie does not become more true just because you repeat it over and over.

/Michael Karnerfors, member of the network Nuclear Power Yes Please

- No I'm sorry! I'm not prepared to persue my line of inquiry any further as I think this is getting too silly!
- Quite agree, quite agree. Silly silly silly. Right, get on with it. Get on with it!

Wind power increases vulnerability to terrorism

Per Ribbing, board member of Sveriges Vindkraftkooperativ, an economic cooperative union promoting wind power, argues that large scale power production such as with nuclear power or coal plants is "yummie" for the world's terrorists. The implication is that distributed power production like wind and solar power is better from a security perspective because terrorists or warmongers cannot knock out every wind turbine and solar panel. He asks us:

I have a question... Is it at all possible to wage a war over wind? Who do you invade to control the ocean's waves? Who do you shoot to steal their sun?

I know he asked the questions rhetorically, but here are the answers: "Yes it is"; "the grid operation centers"; "the grid operators". Electrical power is never autonomous. You need a power grid and someone to operate it. This is where the weak spot is. Distributed power production, especially with fickle and unreliable power sources such as wind and solar power, does not increase our resilience against security threats such as terrorism. On the contrary, wind and solar power makes us more vulnerable.

As we showed in our article The day wind power nearly blew out Europe, distributed power power production with unreliable sources puts great strain on the networks. Having to do constant load balancing puts the grid at risk since it was never built to shuffle large amounts of power over great distances. This means that our weak spots in such a scenario is not the power plants, but the power grid. Take out a few nodes in such a network, and you can cause not just nationwide havoc, but in fact start messing things up for an entire continent.

Per Ribbing asks us:

What kind of world do you want to build? One where the energy systems have to be constantly protected from terrorists?

Again he asked this rhetorically... but here is a lesson in debating Per: don't ask questions for which you may get undesirable answers. The answer to your question is that reliable large scale power production plants are at least possible to protect, and they do not make our power grid highly vulnerable to evildoers.

As the editors of Barometern.se already concluded: as long as there is a terrorist threat, any kind of critical facility, be they subways, hospitals, aircraft, ferries and so forth, will be at risk. A wind powered system is not exempt from this because we will still have power network operation centers, network nodes, switch yards, power lines and thousands of other vulnerable points where a terrorist may cause havoc.

So the answer to security threats is not to start handicapping ourselves, because no matter what we do we will still be vulnerable. Making a move to wind power will not help. The terrorism argument in the debate on our future power solution is nothing but an inane and silly appeal to fear.