Mera kärnkraft för miljön
Vid FNs artskyddsmöte COP 15 i Montreal har man kommit överens om att en tredjedel av planetens yta ska vara fredad år 2030 för att skydda den biologiska mångfalden. Bra så.
Men borde man inte samtidigt gå in för mera kärnkraft och eventuellt lite mindre nogräknad kärnkraft? Det har ju visat sig att på det område där Chernobyl-katastrofen inträffade har flora och fauna börjat frodas som aldrig tidigare, när människorna äntligen försvunnit, dvs evakuerats.
Så fram för mera kärnkraft, snabbt och billigt. Biologisk mångfald får man på köpet om det nu skulle råka hända nåt.
I väntan på fusionskraften alltså, för den får man nog vänta på till långt efter 2030.
Samtidigt kunde man här hemma förverkliga salig Henrik Tikkanens visserligen som ett skämt framkastade strålande (!) idé att gräva ner allt utbränt kärnbränsle längs vår östra gräns, bara nån meter under jordytan förstås. Så skulle man slippa bygga dyra stängsel. Varningsskyltar torde räcka.
Goda råd gratis på Tigern!
Your formulations do of course leave some doubt how serious you really are. Anyway we know from experience that nuclear power is ANYTHING BUT ”snabbt och billigt”. One might think that any nation which has managed to drive submarines with nuclear power should have little trouble building small modular reactors, but reportedly there is up to now not a single model of such which would have an official permission to be used. Further, for the reactors one would need enriched uranium, and it would make us of course dependent on anybody who would be willing and able to sell it to us (very similar to Germany’s dependency on Russian gas), on top of which there is the sad fact that the uranium would first have to be mined, and we do know that Big Enterprise is NOT in the habit of giving much thought to the well-being of local populations (or even their environment) who happen to be ”in the way”, don’t we … . And as we meanwhile had to get used again to the possibility of war even at us, what might be the consequences if some bomb or missile would smash up such a small reactor? Anyway nothing pleasant … . The idea of securing the border by digging down radioactive waste along it should meanwhile (after having noticed how carelessly anyway the Russian army is wasting the lives of its soldiers) be just taken as the joke it is.
Altogether, if one HAS enough space to put up many wind power units, and also has sufficiently much wind for the purpose, it might be best to make use of the possibility. Very recently HBL was publishing a long article about the idea that Finland could provide some 40% of the green hydrogen Europe might need in some near future by wind power. Stora Enso has recently joined up with a Swedish firm for building the necessary towers (as far as meant to stand on land) of wood, and plans to make also the blades of those wind power units of wood are reportedly under discussion. For storage of temporary surpluses of electricity there is already the method developed by the firm Polar Night Energy” in Tampere (they are storing it in the form of heat, and the heat could partly be transformed back into electricity by means of the Stirling engine). – All these things can be googled (if one should be interested). But the perhaps biggest advantage of wind power has STILL to be mentioned: AS SOON AS a wind power unit has been set up and been connected to the grid it will produce electricity without delay as soon as there is wind. Compare that perhaps to the history of Olkiluoto 3 … .