Carl-Åke Utterström comments

Albaleo The Swedish Svenska Kraftnät with the effective useable windpower as effect of installed rate effect is 6 percent in summer and 11 percent in winter. That means a lot of ineffectiveness with windpower. As the windpower also do need backup-power that will also be unsatifactured circumstances.

That´s ok to be engaged in wind- and sunpower but I think we have much more possibilities to force the development of gen IV and Thorium reactors for the future. During the meantime we can built gen III+.

In the end if you have 5 000 MW nuclear you must have 45 500 MW installed windpower to get the same result in winter. In summer it´s even worse. Do correct me if I am wrong.

Albaleo. The electric production from renewable specially sun power is very minimal. A guy in Sweden have mounted sunpower on every existing roofs of his Ranch and get an income of €120 pro month.

To replace a normal nuclear plant of 1 000 MW it´s needed 600 000 such solar plants.

That means even stooring of sun power will give a minimum of supply to the total effect in the country net. Even though it can impact the momental balance between production and consumption which at every single time have to be equal and of cource a stooring can effect. But the stooring amount will not have much capacity. Sorry.

Normally sunpower gives an income of say €8 pro month with installation costs of €4 500. That means not very economically for your private economy.

Marcelito The nuclear energy is predictable what the renewables not are. We have tto have a realistic view of the dangerousity with nuclear. People from Norway which were evacuated by specifik extra flights as effect of the Fukushima disaster were evacuated to areas with higher radiation than in Fukushima. British experts have said the evacuation of Japanese people wasn´t needed at all.

The actual radiation level with yeardoses of 120 milliSievert do increase the risk for lungcancer with one percent while smoking do increase the risk to 1 500 percent.

The car traffic is more risky for the health than nuclear is.

Answer to mmwkdw.

What´s the difference enviromentally betwen electric cycles, eScooters and electrical motorcycles.

Electrifying of cars for example from fossil fuels do go from in Sweden 30 TWh fossil fuel to 10 TWh electric consumption. That means you spare 2/3 of the energy demand but increase the electric demand ut at the same time the reaction of exhaust will give fewer amount of demens illness.

Why only speek of renewable energy as nuclear power is fossil free and ought to do the task even better than renewable do.

Since1981

As the prices from nuclear plant are lower than LNG

That protective suit would be useful in the center of Tokyo too, then as the radiation value is equally high as in Fukushima. Miss of sence. Why scaring people re nuclear plant as according to British experts now evaquation were needed.

Nuclear is the best to generate electric power. Less killed than from wind power. Less resources needed re civil nuclear than both wind power and sun power.

A nuclear plant of 3 300 MW like ringhals 4 in Sweden corresponds to two million sun power plant if a rather huge plant have an monthly income of €120.

If you have 207 GW nuclear power that corresponds to 126 million sun power plants. That is the complete population in Japan. If we divided it by three it will be 69 GW which demand one huge sun power plant on every household in Japan. I suppose that is close to wath you do have had. Am I right.

Just to get a figure of the effeciency of the sun power. Ridicoulus low as this example show.

Sorry but the radiation is even worse in Tokyo central shopping center than at Fukushima and their it doesn´t need any radiation protection at all. As we everyone have an internal radiation meaning that for instance four people together generate more radiation than Harrisburg. Coal power plants do generate during normal operation higher degree of radiation than nuclear plant generate after disaster. What I mean is that we should have a realistic view in all cases. Why not speak about 10 000 killed in water power accident in connection with the tsunami and the earth quake.

zichi on google crome I search for "Financial times Fukushima disaster" and get the result above from March 2018.

zichi I found this article from Financial Times dated 2018 that will give some overview according to the disaster.

https://www.ft.com/content/000f864e-22ba-11e8-add1-0e8958b189ea

Hideomi Kuze The nuclear disaster was generated by a Tsunami combined with an earth quake.

A water power station resulted in 10 000 killed but that is not frequently written.

The evacuation was an effect of the Tsunami that destroyed of lot of houses. British experts said the evacuation as effect of the radioactive wasn´t needed. Why put the costs for evacuation on the nuclear bill?

We do need nuclear as effect of the overgoing to electric feeded systems like the complete transport sector with cars, busses, trucks, lorries etc. That means all systems that do have wheels and furthermore ship, aeroplane etc. Not planning possible production from renewable is a disaster. Cost much and do make hugh impact on the CO2 exhaust. Germany increased renewable with 100 percent and reduced CO2 with just 2 percent. What´s the meaning with that? High costs, high requirement of resources compared to nuclear.

Why not build Thoriumreactors which use Thorium with an annual growth in the oceans.

That is a renewable planning possible electric source.

The risk for lungcancer is 1 500 percent and even passive smoking do represent a higher level for lungcancer.

We can make a comparance. The risk for lungcancer is 1 percent as effect of exposure to the radioactive radiation from Fukushima.

Of cource there is an increased risk but put that in relation to smoking which have a much more healthy risk.

The Wind mills were outdated by other technic and so will the Wind power too. It is ineffective, cost a lot, high amount of rawmaterial and not predictable. A countries electrical consumption can´t be dependent on unpredictable energy.

In Sweden a person do calculate with an income of €120 pro month. This is extremely high income compared to the nominal income which is about €8 pro month.

To replace an ordinary nuclear power station of 1 000 MW you need 600 000 extremely high income solar plant according to above.

Sun power can never be more than a marginal producer of electricity.

In the near future all systems on wheels will be electrically. Such as the complete transport sector like bikes, motor bikes, cars, buses, trucks, lorries. Even agriculture- earth mowing-, wood-, and mines equipment will be electrically feeded. Furthermore ship, ferries, aeroplane and private boots as well as serverhalls, battery facture and conversion of furnaces from coal till hydrogen gas. Only the last part do represent a consumption in Sweden equal to the excisting Wind Power.

Therefore unpredictable renewable will never be enough. We have to have an additional electrical source which either gen. 3+, gen iV cor Thorium reactors represent.

The Thorium reactor can be defined as predictable renewable energy source. The grow pro year of Thorium in the oceans around the world is higher than the consumption.

The radioactive emission from Fukushima is 120 milliSievert pro year which means an increased lung cancerrisk of 1 percent compared to smoking that do increase the risk for lung cancer with 1 500 percent. For the people to avoid passive smoking.

A man with a radiactive detector walk around in a nuclear plant with no indication mostly but get indication on-board a flight.

Zichi.

According to British expert evacuation was not needed. If a Tsunami hit the coast and destroyed buildings so that the people have to evacuate. This shouldn´t been included in the cost for the Fukushima disaster. Why are we not talking about 10 000 killed as result of that a water power plant was destroyed. Do calcolate the costs re Fukushima in a proper way.

If a lot of buildings were destroyed than as a result of that will be reduced electric power demand.

There are a lot of development within the nuclear area as Gen IV and Thorium reactors. The last use Thorium from the ocean which amount do grow for each year. That is a renewable source.

For each 1000 MW nuclear reactor you need 600 000 plants which gives €120 pro mounth. For the total nuclear program in Sweden we need 6 miljon plants and have in totalt 1.7 private owned house. For Japan you need 30 miljon solar plants. How many houses in Japan. That is you have to install solar panels on most of the houses.

If we transfer the whole transportsector to electricity the electricity demand have to grow rapidly. All transport on wheels will be electric as well as earth mowing-, agriculture-, and wood handling machines plus private boots etc.

AS we know that we do need a lot of electricity in the future we do need nuclear depending on that solar- and wind power is not predictable. A stable electricity production is necessary as a lot of processes do not tolerant short interrupts in the electricity as critical surgery etc.

There are processindustry that note tolerate interrupts of seconds, milliseconds etc. The steel industry as example have e very accurate regulation by cooling etc which means that the quality of the steel in the end differ as effect of bad electricity deliveries.

Prior we have mills but they have been outconquered by other methods. They same ought to happen with wind power.

Sun power. A speaking partner in Sweden have mounted a lot sun power to his farm and as a result earned €120 pro mounth. If we compare that with a normal nuclear plant of 1 000 MW. To get equal income you do need 600 000 of the mentioned solar plant compare to one normal nuclear plant.

In Sweden a private house do install four solar panels to a cost of €4 500 and get an income of only €8 pro mounth. In all he had an annual income of €100.

What I mean is that the renewable energy is very rowmaterial intensive, cost a lot, is man intensive and don´t give that much back.

Of cource nuclear have their risks but according to IPCC that are risks that we can live with.

I beg you. Read this calm through and try to not immedeately oppose the way I am attacking the problem to get Japan and the world an production of electricity that correspond an even more increasing demand of electricity. The electricity consumption in the world are estimated to rice with 25 percent to 2040. If the demand will rice even more as result of an ongoing procedure of replacing a lot of systems with today other types of consumption to become dependent on electricity what will we do. Renewable do not represent a way forward.

In the future nuclear plant converts to generation IV or Thorium reactors. The first can use existing fuel to produce electricity 100 times more and Thorium reactors can use Thorium from the worldwide oceans. That will be a renewable source to nuclear as Thorium in the oceans do increase for each year.

A way for the future I think we shall force the development of gen IV and Thorium reactors. What is your opinion?

The radiation from Fukushima will give an annual dose of 120 milliSievert. Prior nuclear workers were admitted an annual dose of 200 milliSievert. The limit value today is 20 milliSievert.

A Swedish voman make a documentary over the Fukushima disaster and explained the the meassuring documented dose value 5 - 6 times the limit value. That means about 120 milliSievert.

A University in Kiev Ucraine has developed a measuring device that will follow the March lander to document which radiation an astronaut will be exposed for during the travelling and visiting on March.

If a do calculate the annual exposition for the astronaut by following the March lander and visiting on March for a total time of one year. He will be exposed for an annual dose of 360 milliSieverts which will increase the lung cancer risk with 1 percent. But smoking do result in an increased lung cancer risk with 1 500 percent.

Of cource nuclear have their risks but we have to compare that with other risks in our society.

Wind power do kill 166 persons during one single year which is more than what the civil nuclear have from the very beginning.

Our society will become more and more electrical. The complete transport sector agriculture earth mowing wood industry etc plus server halls battery facture and furnaces conversion from coal to gas. Like in Sweden only the furnaces represent demand of electricity almost equal to today wind power.

Finnaly. For the future we do need much more electricity than today

The main rreason to the damage from the Tsunami was that the wall was to lpow. The nuckear company wanted to build it higher but was not allowed to do that. Why not punished them responsible for that decision.

Do you know that on any flight at all radiation is alive. In the space the radiationn levet is even higher than inside a nuclear plant, That´s it.

The radiation from Fukushima correspond to a yeardose of 120 miliiSievert earlier. The limit is yeardoses of 20 milliSievert. But in India the natural radiation in ceowded areas is 200 milliSievert.

British experts says the evacuation wasn´t really neccesary.

Why that focus on nuclear accident when you have the water power accident where 10 000 were killed.

The risk for lungcancer increase with one percent while 30 percent of people dead in lungcancer is as effect of passiv smoking?

He is not grownup. He acked like a Child.

The damage as effect of the tsunami and Earth quake have nothing to do with the nuclear plant, The suggestion was also that the wall to prohobit damage from a tsunami was expected to be 11 metre high. This was acknowledge by the athority.

That means damage of houses etc as effect of the tsunami and needed evacuation in Connection with that have nothing to do with the nuclear plant.

Here is a serious report of the costs for cleaning of nuclear plant €15bn and evacuation €60bn. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/03/10/after-five-years-what-is-the-cost-of-fukushima/#2b5864cf6016

Neither the amount of killed humans nor the costs have nothing to do with the nuclear accident. They wanted to build a 11 metre high wall but was prohibited.

Forbes do say that the costs for cleaning up etc is $15 bln of the nuclear plant and the compensation for they who have been evacuated is $60 bln.

The costs for damages of houses etc that the Earth quake and the tsunami is $250 bln that doesn´t have anything to do with the nuclear plant. Why are they not serious. The nuclear plant do not have anything to do with that 10 000 people were killed in a water Power accident in Connection with the Earth quake and tsunami.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/03/10/after-five-years-what-is-the-cost-of-fukushima/#283172d16016

Why included the costs for rebuilding houses etc as effect of the tsunami. That hasn´t anything to do with the nuclear accident. Separate the costs belonging to the nuclear plant. You journalists ought to be serious.

Evacuation Zon.

The risk for lung cancer by the recent radiation will increase with one percent. But if you do smoke the risk will be 1 500 percent, Even passive smoking do increase risk heavely.

Four scientist from Brittain do questioning the evacuation at all re Fukushima.

Do have an objective attach to risks in Connection to nuclear similar to all other risks. Why do weigh the risks harder than in other industrial activity.

Nuclear is a much better energy source than cool burning.In Europé about 430 000 people do die every year as effect opf cool burning.

As the wind Power just have a Life length of twenty year a great amount of wind Power aggregate have to be established every year for to have the amount of wind Power on a stand still.

Re the Effect source the Wind Power do only have six percent of effectiveness. During Winter the effectiveness rise to 11 percent. That means if you have nuclear for 10 000 MW, Wind Power have to be 150 000 MW whi9ch can be devided to 50 000 pieces of 3 MW each.

You have to build 2 500 wind Power units pro yéar for only to have the amount constant. Sun Power is even less profitable,

If we look at Fukushima the annual radiative exhaust will be 120 milliSievert a year. A radiation of 350 milliSievert will increase the lung cancer risk with Three percent while if you smoke the risk for lungcancer will increase to 1 500 percent.

Four University in Great Brittain do questionice whether the evacuation re Fukushima was needed at all.

The Tsunami do destroy a lot of houses but that doesn´t became an effect of the nuclear disaster.

Why should this have an impact on the forest as the nature animals etc. have returned to Chernobyl. The background radiation was higher in the anciant time. The worst natural background radiation today in the world is 350 milliSievert which increase the lung cancer risk with Three percent.

The actual radiation in Fukushima is 120 milliSievert.

I have Heard that the actual radiation in worst contaminaited areas is annual 120 milliSievert. Is that correct or what iss the actual level?