{"id":3296,"date":"2020-09-01T09:43:49","date_gmt":"2020-09-01T09:43:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/?p=3296"},"modified":"2023-06-01T16:40:51","modified_gmt":"2023-06-01T16:40:51","slug":"atomaffald-et-allerede-lost-problem-der-alligevel-aldrig-bliver-lost-nok","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/atomaffald-et-allerede-lost-problem-der-alligevel-aldrig-bliver-lost-nok\/","title":{"rendered":"Nuclear waste \u2013 an already solved problem that will never be solved enough anyway"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

As climate policy moves higher up the agenda in most countries, nuclear power is being reconsidered. In some respects, the debate on nuclear power is new, since, unlike in the 70s, CO2 freedom is the central argument in favor of nuclear power. Today, we have a massive waste problem, in the form of CO2 emissions, which we would like to do something about. It’s not the only waste problem we struggle with. Air pollution caused by burning coal and biomass shortens millions of lives every year, and that same burning also emits mercury that accumulates in ocean food chains.<\/p>

Just as last time nuclear power was on the agenda, most people’s biggest objection to nuclear energy is that it has a so-called waste problem. However, we are rarely told exactly what the problem is, who it is a problem for, and how big the problem is when compared to other energy technologies and other industries. In fact, spent fuel from nuclear power has never harmed anyone, and nothing suggests that it will change. We are told that the waste problem has not yet been solved, but not what it means to solve it.<\/p>

If you drill into it a little, you will find that the problem, especially with the anti-nuclear movement, is defined by a principle of unfairness. The sense that even a microscopic risk of a release of radioactive material within 100,000 years is defined as a problem, no matter how small that release may be. In other words, we have a categorical approach in which only zero risk can be accepted.<\/p>

Of course, you cannot get honest scientists or authorities to say that anything will be 100% safe in 100,000 years, and therefore you can always proclaim the ‘problem’ of nuclear waste unsolved, no matter how infinitely small a real problem it may be. This is, of course, an unacceptable approach, both for nuclear power but also for all other industries working with potentially harmful materials.<\/p>

Figure 1: Nuclear waste \u2013 common perceptions versus reality.<\/strong><\/p>

<\/strong><\/p>

On the left side, we see a classic representation of nuclear waste in the TV series The Simpsons. On\u00a0the\u00a0right side are shown all nuclear waste that Switzerland has produced over the past 45 years.<\/p>

The categorical approach makes radiation something uniquely evil, dangerous, and unnatural, which is why radioactive material must be subject to completely different requirements than other potentially hazardous materials. It is not considered that radioactivity is a completely natural and widespread phenomenon that exists all around us, that we receive radiation from nature all the time, and that we ourselves are mildly radioactive.<\/p>

In some places in Finland, people naturally get higher doses than in most places in the Fukushima evacuation zone. There are places in Iran and Brazil where people receive more than 10 times the normal background radiation in Denmark without affecting their health. Nor does it address the fact that the hospital sector uses treatments, for example against cancer, that deliver far greater doses of radiation to people than can reasonably be expected in the event of a release from a final warehouse.<\/p>

In practice, however, a zero-risk requirement has been introduced for nuclear waste, which serves no purpose other than to prevent the solutions that already exist.<\/p>

There is also surprisingly little waste from nuclear power. All the world’s nuclear waste can be stacked 10 meters high on a football field. When there is so little waste, it is profitable for the nuclear industry to store it safely and isolated from the environment, and that is exactly what is being done. Many are busy pointing out that there is no permanent storage but do not realize that spent fuel has been stored on land for decades. Without harming anyone. It just stands and takes care of itself in solid concrete cylinders. It is quite smart to keep the waste here because the coming 4th generation of nuclear power can recycle the waste as fuel. After recycling, only a handful of waste is left behind per Dane, from cradle to grave. The nuclear industry is 100% in control of its waste and there is a large catalog of solutions to store the small amount of waste safely on the relevant timescale.<\/p>

In Scandinavia, a tax is even levied that goes to a fund that finances the landfill, and Finland has already started building their final storage facility, Onkalo. Here, the waste will be stored in rocks that have been stable for almost 2 billion years. The Finnish stockpile is so safe that even in the event of an unlikely worst-case spill, people will get a radiation dose thousands of times less than what we get from the natural background radiation. Most such proposed solutions for the storage of nuclear waste, which are subject to extreme safety requirements, are therefore safe by any reasonable measure of waste management. In Finland, therefore, the ‘waste problem’ has been solved. Not because a particularly clever technical solution has been found, but because that solution has been accepted politically.<\/p>

This safe management of waste contrasts sharply with the management of waste from the burning of coal and biomass. Or rather, the lack thereof. The waste pile has become so large that it has changed the composition of something as large as the atmosphere, causing climate change. Tonnes of dioxin-containing fly ash and harmful particles are emitted, causing a wide range of diseases and environmental damage. The mercury emitted accumulates in the food chains of the oceans.<\/p>

Compared to the realized waste problems we face today, it is irrational to focus on what-if hypothetical scenarios with nuclear waste. If the same requirements are imposed on nuclear power as are imposed on other industries, namely that waste must be handled responsibly and not pose a risk to people or nature, the waste problem will already have been solved.<\/p>

Just as anti-vaxxers do themselves and others a disservice by rejecting life-saving vaccines because of small risks of side effects, many green people are doing the environment a disservice by rejecting a technology that greatly reduces both public health and environmental risks, for the sole reason that it does not reduce them to zero.\u00a0According to NASA scientists, nuclear power has already saved nearly two million lives<\/a> by replacing fossil fuels and preventing respiratory diseases, cancer, and heart problems. It is madness to reject a cure for a deadly disease in order to avoid imaginary side effects.<\/p>

It is therefore dangerous to confuse factual environmental problems with perceived environmental problems in public debate. The green opposition to nuclear power is both paradoxical and self-defeating, as nuclear power may prove to be by far the best tool we have for combating climate change, loss of biodiversity, mercury pollution in the oceans, and other environmental problems. We should fight the real environmental problems and not, like Don Quixote against the windmills, go to battle, and lose, against an imaginary giant.<\/p>

How much waste is there?<\/strong><\/p>

\u00a0Nuclear waste can be defined in many ways, but here we are talking about spent fuel, the so-called High-Level Waste. This is almost always what is talked about when talking about the ‘unsolved’ problem of radioactive waste. It consists of irradiated fuel taken out of a nuclear reactor. The fuel has a high concentration of radioactive materials.<\/p>

But what makes nuclear energy so attractive is precisely the high energy density of the fuel. Used in today’s reactors, it only takes 11 kilos of uranium to supply a Dane for a lifetime, compared to 350 tons of coal. In volume, a 0.3-liter cola can of Uranium vs. 260029 liters of coal is required. Used in the even more efficient 4th generation reactor reactors under development, only a few hundred grams are needed. A fuel element in a classic nuclear reactor takes up less than one cubic meter and can supply energy in the reactor for over 3 years. It is replaced long before all the fuel is used up.<\/p>

There are 250 000 tonnes of nuclear waste from all the nuclear power stations that have existed so far. The waste fills a box of 30 x 30 x 30 meters.\u00a0You end up with approximately 3.3 tons of nuclear waste per TWh of electricity generated.<\/a>\u00a0Denmark currently uses\u00a0about 33 TWh<\/a>\u00a0of electricity every year, so if we went all-in on nuclear power for electricity, we would end up with 110 tons of highly radioactive waste, or just over 12 cubic meters, every year. It would not take up more space than an average Copenhagen bathroom.<\/p>

The main advantage of the very minimal amount of waste is that we can isolate it completely <\/em>from the environment at an affordable price. It offers far-reaching perspectives for environmental conservation that the nuclear industry itself takes responsibility for the waste it generates. It is stored in special containers, which are then stored safely. One can even stand next to the container or hug them. If you are a Loyal to Familia member, you can also shoot at the container with your anti-tank rockets without them breaking. You cannot steal them unnoticed, as tons of containers can only be moved by powerful trucks and crane trucks. Spent fuel has therefore not caused either major environmental damage or death in the West.<\/p>

This is in stark contrast to fossil energy. Globally, we burn eight billion tons of coal every year. Each TWh of electricity produced by coal burning\u00a0emits 800,000 tons of CO2, other air-polluting particles, and an average of 50 kilograms of mercury<\/a>. Carbon dioxide is causing\u00a0climate change<\/a>. Other air pollution is one of the\u00a0biggest public health risks of all,<\/a>\u00a0with 1700 premature deaths in the metropolitan area alone\u00a0each year<\/a>. Since coal contains a small amount of mercury, this is emitted when the coal is burned. Since we burn an incredible amount of coal,\u00a0500 tons of mercury are emitted annually from burning coal and biomass<\/a>. In organic form, mercury can be absorbed into marine ecosystems and accumulate in larger fish, where larger fish such as tuna can easily have harmful concentrations. If you are exposed to large amounts of mercury, it can affect e.g. the development of fetuses,\u00a0and give rise to a host of other health problems<\/a>. Therefore, pregnant women are advised not to eat tuna.<\/p>

It is less dangerous to smear oneself in a kilogram of coal waste than a kilogram of nuclear waste. However, the amount of waste from coal power is millions of times greater \u2013 we cannot handle the huge waste stream, which therefore ends up in the environment and in the air around us. It is completely unrealistic to capture all toxic smoke and CO2 from the chimneys of coal-fired power stations and to capture and store all the emitted particles safely forever. The world consumes 5,685,160,808,764 cubic meters of coal annually \u2013 a volume equivalent to nearly 6000,<> Empire State Buildings \u2013 all of which becomes waste after incineration. In contrast, spent nuclear fuel takes up almost no space, which is why we can manage to handle it responsibly, away from people and the environment, and even recycle it to make more clean energy.<\/p>

How dangerous is nuclear waste in theory?<\/strong><\/p>

Nuclear waste is dangerous to eat, there is no doubt about that. Radioactive isotopes are produced in a nuclear reactor and the approximately 20 tons of spent fuel produced each year must be stored safely. 20 tons sounds like a lot, but nuclear fuel is heavy metal and in fact, it only takes up 1 cubic meter, equivalent to a medium-sized wardrobe. Opponents of nuclear power like to point out that if people eat the nuclear waste produced in a reactor every year, 50 million people will be killed. This is absolutely correct, but it is also irrelevant. We do not eat nuclear waste.<\/p>

If you think about it a little bit, it’s clear that it’s counterproductive to use the hypothetical scenario of all hazardous material being eaten to assess whether something is dangerous or not. After all, we don’t do that when we buy a bottle of drain cleaner, or fill up the car with gasoline. Chlorine gas, for example, is a toxic gas used in the First World War, which can be made using ordinary table salt. It is an invaluable element in the chemical industry. Around 65 million tonnes of chlorine are produced worldwide every year. Enough to kill the entire population of the Earth several times. Which again is irrelevant because it is being properly handled. There are, of course, countless other examples from the world of chemistry, of large amounts of properly handled toxic compounds, and unfortunately also examples of improperly handled.<\/p>

In principle, it takes about 300 mg of nuclear waste from a few years old spent fuel element to deliver a lethal dose. It’s a toxic class with some of the most toxic chemicals we know, such as nicotine and vitamin D3, though not as toxic as Botox.<\/p>

How dangerous is this in practice?<\/strong><\/p>

Taking the same pragmatic view of nuclear waste as most people do for other industries, it is relatively easy to see that nuclear waste does not pose a public health risk in practice. Nuclear power plants are being built to store spent fuel safely on-site, and its handling is subject to very strict requirements. In addition, radioactive isotopes emit characteristic radiation, which makes it very easy to detect and detect any releases of radioactive material.<\/p>

In fact, the easy traceability of atomic isotopes is precisely one of the reasons for the heavy focus on radiation: it is much easier to detect than most other forms of pollution.<\/p>

After the fuel element is hoisted out of the reactor, it is placed in a pool of water, along with the other spent fuel elements. Here they can be stored safely until the short-lived isotopes have decayed.<\/p>

Then you can, for example, store the spent fuel dry in the so-called ‘dry cask’ containers. Several spent fuel elements are encapsulated in metal and concrete, where they can then be safely stored in a central warehouse. There are several such warehouses around the world where the spent fuel is safely stored until it is either recycled or stored permanently. To date, there have been no major releases of radioactive material as a result of the temporary storage of nuclear waste.<\/p>

Figure 2: Stored fuel elements<\/strong><\/p>

\"https:\/\/www.world-nuclear.org\/getmedia\/0b1354a2-0347-4bb3-a5e5-92fc5493f78d\/Wet-storage-SKB.jpg.aspx\"<\/p>

The photo shows a pool with stored fuel elements. The water protects against radiation. Source: SKB (Sweden)<\/p>

Figure 3: Dry cask storage<\/strong><\/p>

\"File:Dry<\/p>

The picture shows dry cask storage<\/a>. A dry cask is a spent fuel (metal) encased in a thick layer of copper or lead, and then a thick layer of concrete. The spent fuel is not moving anywhere. Several fuel elements are encased in a concrete tank, which is safe to stand next to. Imagine if all the ash, toxic particles, and CO2 from coal power could be encapsulated just as simply. The reason it is possible to store all the nuclear waste so well is that there is incredibly little of it. Nuclear power produces huge amounts of energy with almost no fuel, as uranium contains up to three million times as much energy as coal. With Gen-IV nuclear power, that could mean three million times less waste than with coal. The prospects for nature conservation by having such a small footprint are enormous.<\/p>

A typical objection to the production of nuclear waste is that it takes a long time for the waste to become non-hazardous, as the decay time of many of the isotopes in nuclear waste is many thousands of years. But it also means that the waste becomes less and less toxic over time.<\/p>

The graph below (Figure 4) shows a curve of the toxicity of the waste compared to the uranium initially used. If you do not treat the spent fuel at all, it takes 250,000 years before the toxicity is on par with natural uranium. If you re-treat the fuel, as is done in France, and extract uranium and plutonium so that it can be reused in a classic nuclear reactor, it takes ‘only’ 10,000 years.<\/p>

\"\"<\/p>

The toxicity of\u00a0nuclear waste in relation to the toxicity of the uranium that is dug out of the ground to produce the fuel.<\/a>\u00a0The red curve is without reprocessing, the blue curve is with reprocessing and the green curve is what is left if you burn the waste in certain Gen-IV reactors under development.<\/p>

If you recycle the fuel in an FNR or MSR reactor, it will only take 250 years before the remaining waste is less toxic than the original uranium dug out of the mine. Precisely because it is possible to recycle spent fuel, many advocates of nuclear power are opposed to burying the waste; It is seen as a resource.<\/p>

As the waste is less and less radioactive over the years, the waste becomes correspondingly less dangerous to consume. The scale of toxicity in the figure above is logarithmic, so e.g. retreated waste (the blue curve) is already ten times less toxic after 100 years than the used fuel was on day one. After 1,000 years, the toxicity is comparable to the mercury that is today emitted 500 tons globally, every year, as a result of burning coal.<\/p>

The comparison should not be seen as an argument for being sloppy with nuclear waste. They are just to illustrate that the way we treat nuclear waste today is far more responsible than waste from the fossil energy sector and that the relevant timescale for storage only needs to be 100,000 years if the requirement is that toxicity must be in line with natural uranium \u2013 a somewhat arbitrary criterion.<\/p>

Few know this, but the unsolved waste problem has actually been solved in Finland. A solution has been accepted there, and at the time of writing a storage facility for the spent fuel is being built. Here, the spent fuel is not retreated as in France, but the radioactive fuel elements are encapsulated directly in an iron container, which is then encapsulated in a copper container. This copper container is encapsulated in bentonite, which has the fortunate property of providing a barrier against water. The aim is to prevent the radioactive material from dissolving in water, thereby increasing the risk of ending up in an ecosystem in the future.\u00a0This is one of the reasons why the sandwich is buried 500 meters into very geologically stable areas<\/a>, and therefore far from the groundwater both in terms of time and place (See figure 5).<\/p>

Figure 5: The politically accepted Finnish solution for storage of used fuel<\/strong><\/p>

\"Billedet<\/p>

The fuel consists of fuel pellets encased in the fuel element, and from there are three additional barriers: iron, copper, and bentonite. All this is located in rocks that have been stable for almost two billion years. Most of the elements in the fuel are not soluble in water, but even if they were, they are far from groundwater and encased in water-repellent clay and several layers of metal. So there are several barriers that enclose the spent fuel so effectively that the chance of them all being broken is virtually zero.<\/a><\/p>

Although the chance of spills is almost zero, the responsible Finns have calculated in detail\u00a0what will happen in the event of worst-case leaks<\/a>. Such calculations must be scrutinized and approved by the authorities. The worst dose that could be calculated is an annual dose of 0.0002 mSv per year. In this worst-case scenario, water would strangely reach the waste, so that part of the waste would dissolve and end up in a food chain.<\/p>

If you eat a banana, you absorb a dose of 0.0001 mSv from the natural potassium, so the Finnish worst-case scenario is equivalent to 2 bananas per year. And that worst-case scenario, as mentioned, is extremely unlikely.<\/p>

It is therefore a pleasant safety margin: Even the worst-case scenario involves a 10,000 times smaller radiation dose than the natural background radiation you receive annually when you live in Denmark. The worst-case scenario produces 50,000 times less radiation than the highest annual natural background radiation in Finland from radon gas (10 mSv per year),\u00a0which 100,000 Finns live with today<\/a>.<\/p>

So to sum up: The chance of any of the fuel ever escaping from the container is almost zero, and if it does, then in the scenarios considered the release will give negligible amounts of extra radiation, as we already receive thousands of times more radiation from nature and hospitals.<\/p>

In short, the Finnish storage of spent fuel is one of the most thorough and safe handlings of toxic material imaginable. The risk of harm and pollution is almost non-existent. It is therefore hysterical to oppose the microscopic risks of nuclear waste when all sorts of safe and trivial everyday activities, such as going to work, swimming, or playing football, involve far greater risks.<\/p>

\u00a0But what if everything goes more wrong than you can imagine, do you not cause an environmental disaster? No, you don’t.<\/strong><\/p>

In the past, it has been common to throw radioactive waste directly into the sea. The Soviet Union dumped over 300,000 cubic meters of radioactive waste, including spent fuel, into the sea from 1959-1992, and most Western countries did the same right up to the 80s. This is a mess and was rightly banned internationally in 1993.<\/p>

Before it was banned in 1963, nuclear weapons tests were carried out in the atmosphere, emitting very large amounts of radioactive material. Several nuclear submarines have sunk during the Cold War, and at the time of writing, there are 8 reactor wrecks underwater, including off the coasts of Finland and Spain.<\/p>

In the past, therefore, reactor waste, and radioactivity in general, has been very wasteful during the Cold War. Far greater quantities of radioactive material have already been discharged than would ever be discharged from the worst-case scenario of spent fuel storage. It has not resulted in enormous public health risks or major irreversible damage to ecosystems.<\/p>

There are even natural examples of abandoned nuclear waste. In Oklo in Congo, uranium was found in such high concentrations in the Earth that a spontaneous natural nuclear reaction occurred 1.7 billion years ago when water ran into the uranium layer. The natural reactor produced a lot of heat, but, of course, not electricity. The waste isotopes such as cesium, plutonium, and strontium were already free in the soil. Even so, the “waste” only managed to move a few centimeters from the soil layer where the reaction took place, even though the soil layer is not geologically stable as in Onkalo. This natural example shows that buried radioactive material from nuclear reactions largely stays where it is. Even over milliards of years, and even without the thorough planning and permitting that is necessary for an artificial nuclear waste repository.<\/p>

Those who promote fear of radioactive waste rarely tell us what they are specifically afraid of. The mere mention of a remote possibility of radioactive release is often enough to stop the conversation. But both the dose and previous experience matter, and the knowledge we have today limits how bad scenarios it is reasonable to devise in the sensible handling of spent fuel. Instead, we should focus on real, not hypothetical, pollution of the environment: air pollution, mercury pollution, ocean acidification, and climate change are happening on a massive scale. It is paradoxical that many environmental organizations spread fear of “nuclear waste” every time it is proposed to solve the big real problems with fossil waste by replacing dirty fossils with clean nuclear power. Unfortunately, they have a large part of the credit for the fact that today we have huge waste problems from fossil energy: CO2, deadly particle pollution, and accumulation of dioxins and mercury in ecosystems.<\/p>

Definition of waste<\/strong><\/p>

Most people will now argue that renewable energy sources do not produce waste, so they are therefore better than anything else. This is a simplification, even if we exclude the industry that produces wind turbines, solar cells, and batteries, which produces waste just like any other industry.<\/p>

In fact, the material consumption from solar and wind power is 10-15 times greater than for nuclear power, per TWh produced. Wind turbine blades, for example, are produced from fiberglass and synthetic epoxy resins, which are not recycled and therefore end up as waste. Up to 720,000 tons of fiberglass from wind turbine blades\u00a0will end up in landfill over the next 20 years in the United States alone<\/a>. Solar cells and wind turbines only last for 15-25 years. The waste flow is therefore large compared to modern nuclear power plants that last for at least 60 years.<\/p>

Renewable energy sources also require large areas of land<\/a>. The dominant renewable energy sources are solar, wind, and biomass, respectively. Area use varies greatly from place to place, but on average solar farms produce between 5 and 10 Watts per square meter, wind power produces 2 W \/ m<\/span>2<\/sup>, and with hydropower and biomass from forests, you can only supply between 0.1 and 1 W for each square meter of forest or flooded area. By 2050, our total energy consumption will be over 20,000,000,000,000 Watts \u2013 for heating, transport, and industrial processes. For example, if we are to cover the planet’s energy consumption with wind energy, we need 10 million square kilometers. It corresponds to all of Europe from Portugal in the west to Russia’s Ural mountains in the east.<\/span><\/p>

Whether it’s solar farms built on farmland, forests felled or managed as plantations (to the detriment of wild nature and biodiversity), wind farms that obstruct bird migration routes or problematic river dams that alter water supplies and threaten natural areas (as in the Mekong Delta), there are considerable disadvantages to using so much land for energy production. These disadvantages do not take up much space today, but that is only because the share of renewable energy in the steadily increasing energy production is also negligible.<\/p>

Solar, wind, hydro, and biomass undoubtedly have a role to play in a future CO2-free energy supply. But it is a denial of reality to think that a large scale-up of these energy sources has no environmental costs.<\/p>

The perfect is the worst enemy of the good<\/strong><\/p>

The conclusion must be the sad one that there is no source of energy without disadvantages. But this does not mean that all energy sources have equal disadvantages. Fossil fuels give rise to not one but several major environmental problems with high ecological and economic costs. The nuclear industry, on the other hand, is the only energy industry that takes economic and environmental responsibility for the waste it produces. The nuclear industry is obliged to set up funds to pay for the storage of waste, which accumulates over the lifetime of the nuclear power station to many billions, much like pension savings. Storage will take place under extremely strict regulation, and our experience of radioactive contamination makes it impossible to imagine major ecological disasters as a result of the storage of spent fuel. The risks of harm to humans and the environment from the management of nuclear waste are minimal compared to those of other technologies, not only in the energy sector in particular but in the modern world in general.<\/p>

Nevertheless, the environmental NGOs’ requirements for the spent fuel solution are nothing short of perfect. There must be zero risk of spills, not only tomorrow but also in 100 000 years’ time. Misinformation and exaggeration about the harmful effects of radiation have frightened many into opposing any proposal for storage without anyone specifying exactly what they are afraid of and why. No other technology is subject to the requirement of zero risk; it will be completely impossible to implement in practice, and it is also for nuclear power. Imagine if the risk of firefighters dying in the line of duty for everything in the world were to be exactly 0.<\/p>

The zero-risk premise has been set for nuclear power technology. That is why Senator Harry Reid opposed the Yucca Mountain project in the United States, and why the Danish mayors oppose the excellent proposals for a Danish final warehouse in their municipalities. All the while the radioactive waste is stored neatly in halls on land, without harming anyone, and all the while both carbon dioxide and mercury flow out of the chimneys of coal-fired power stations.<\/p>

The fact that waste is stored safely on land is not a problem, but it is a problem for nuclear power that resistance to reasonable solutions for the minimum amounts of waste is so stubbornly irrational. It hampers the industry that may prove to solve the real, not hypothetical, threats to the environment.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

As climate policy moves higher up the agenda in most countries, nuclear power is being reconsidered. In some respects, the debate on nuclear power is new, since, unlike in the 70s, CO2 freedom is the central argument in favor of nuclear power. Today, we have a massive waste problem, in the form of CO2 emissions, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":3298,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_uag_custom_page_level_css":"","site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"default","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"default","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[51],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[46],"class_list":["post-3296","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-atomkraft"],"yoast_head":"\nNuclear waste \u2013 an already solved problem that will never be solved enough anyway<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Har atomkraft et affaldsproblem? Rasmus Toft-Petersen, seniorforsker ved DTU, mener ikke, at atomaffald udg\u00f8r nogen reel ricisi mod samfundet.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/atomaffald-et-allerede-lost-problem-der-alligevel-aldrig-bliver-lost-nok\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Nuclear waste \u2013 an already solved problem that will never be solved enough anyway\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Har atomkraft et affaldsproblem? Rasmus Toft-Petersen, seniorforsker ved DTU, mener ikke, at atomaffald udg\u00f8r nogen reel ricisi mod samfundet.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/atomaffald-et-allerede-lost-problem-der-alligevel-aldrig-bliver-lost-nok\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Foreningen Atomkraft Ja Tak\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-09-01T09:43:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-06-01T16:40:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/https-www-world-nuclear-org-getmedia-0b1354a2-03.jpeg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"840\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"567\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Theis Palm\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Theis Palm\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rpmanetworks.com\\\/atomkraftclonesite-english\\\/atomaffald-et-allerede-lost-problem-der-alligevel-aldrig-bliver-lost-nok\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rpmanetworks.com\\\/atomkraftclonesite-english\\\/atomaffald-et-allerede-lost-problem-der-alligevel-aldrig-bliver-lost-nok\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Theis Palm\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rpmanetworks.com\\\/atomkraftclonesite-english\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/5480ff79f502216a9f269e0629c5b30a\"},\"headline\":\"Nuclear waste \u2013 an already solved problem that will never be solved enough anyway\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-09-01T09:43:49+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-06-01T16:40:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rpmanetworks.com\\\/atomkraftclonesite-english\\\/atomaffald-et-allerede-lost-problem-der-alligevel-aldrig-bliver-lost-nok\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":4738,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rpmanetworks.com\\\/atomkraftclonesite-english\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rpmanetworks.com\\\/atomkraftclonesite-english\\\/atomaffald-et-allerede-lost-problem-der-alligevel-aldrig-bliver-lost-nok\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rpmanetworks.com\\\/atomkraftclonesite-english\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2020\\\/09\\\/https-www-world-nuclear-org-getmedia-0b1354a2-03.jpeg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Atomkraft\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/rpmanetworks.com\\\/atomkraftclonesite-english\\\/atomaffald-et-allerede-lost-problem-der-alligevel-aldrig-bliver-lost-nok\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rpmanetworks.com\\\/atomkraftclonesite-english\\\/atomaffald-et-allerede-lost-problem-der-alligevel-aldrig-bliver-lost-nok\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rpmanetworks.com\\\/atomkraftclonesite-english\\\/atomaffald-et-allerede-lost-problem-der-alligevel-aldrig-bliver-lost-nok\\\/\",\"name\":\"Nuclear waste \u2013 an already solved problem that will never be solved enough anyway\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rpmanetworks.com\\\/atomkraftclonesite-english\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rpmanetworks.com\\\/atomkraftclonesite-english\\\/atomaffald-et-allerede-lost-problem-der-alligevel-aldrig-bliver-lost-nok\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rpmanetworks.com\\\/atomkraftclonesite-english\\\/atomaffald-et-allerede-lost-problem-der-alligevel-aldrig-bliver-lost-nok\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rpmanetworks.com\\\/atomkraftclonesite-english\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2020\\\/09\\\/https-www-world-nuclear-org-getmedia-0b1354a2-03.jpeg\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-09-01T09:43:49+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-06-01T16:40:51+00:00\",\"description\":\"Har atomkraft et affaldsproblem? Rasmus Toft-Petersen, seniorforsker ved DTU, mener ikke, at atomaffald udg\u00f8r nogen reel ricisi mod samfundet.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rpmanetworks.com\\\/atomkraftclonesite-english\\\/atomaffald-et-allerede-lost-problem-der-alligevel-aldrig-bliver-lost-nok\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/rpmanetworks.com\\\/atomkraftclonesite-english\\\/atomaffald-et-allerede-lost-problem-der-alligevel-aldrig-bliver-lost-nok\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rpmanetworks.com\\\/atomkraftclonesite-english\\\/atomaffald-et-allerede-lost-problem-der-alligevel-aldrig-bliver-lost-nok\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rpmanetworks.com\\\/atomkraftclonesite-english\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2020\\\/09\\\/https-www-world-nuclear-org-getmedia-0b1354a2-03.jpeg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rpmanetworks.com\\\/atomkraftclonesite-english\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2020\\\/09\\\/https-www-world-nuclear-org-getmedia-0b1354a2-03.jpeg\",\"width\":840,\"height\":567,\"caption\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.world-nuclear.org\\\/getmedia\\\/0b1354a2-0347-4bb3-a5e5-92fc5493f78d\\\/Wet-storage-SKB.jpg.aspx\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rpmanetworks.com\\\/atomkraftclonesite-english\\\/atomaffald-et-allerede-lost-problem-der-alligevel-aldrig-bliver-lost-nok\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rpmanetworks.com\\\/atomkraftclonesite-english\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Nuclear waste \u2013 an already solved problem that will never be solved enough anyway\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rpmanetworks.com\\\/atomkraftclonesite-english\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rpmanetworks.com\\\/atomkraftclonesite-english\\\/\",\"name\":\"Foreningen Atomkraft Ja Tak\",\"description\":\"- Brug hjernen, split kernen\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rpmanetworks.com\\\/atomkraftclonesite-english\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rpmanetworks.com\\\/atomkraftclonesite-english\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rpmanetworks.com\\\/atomkraftclonesite-english\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Foreningen Atomkraft Ja Tak\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rpmanetworks.com\\\/atomkraftclonesite-english\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rpmanetworks.com\\\/atomkraftclonesite-english\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rpmanetworks.com\\\/atomkraftclonesite-english\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/logo-med-hjemmeside-uden-baggrund.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rpmanetworks.com\\\/atomkraftclonesite-english\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/logo-med-hjemmeside-uden-baggrund.png\",\"width\":1452,\"height\":1470,\"caption\":\"Foreningen Atomkraft Ja Tak\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rpmanetworks.com\\\/atomkraftclonesite-english\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rpmanetworks.com\\\/atomkraftclonesite-english\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/5480ff79f502216a9f269e0629c5b30a\",\"name\":\"Theis Palm\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rpmanetworks.com\\\/atomkraftclonesite-english\\\/wp-content\\\/wphb-cache\\\/gravatar\\\/51c\\\/51cb57991baec1a5e23abbecc277fb70x96.jpg63f121f060de139aa90f00086b0d07a7\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rpmanetworks.com\\\/atomkraftclonesite-english\\\/wp-content\\\/wphb-cache\\\/gravatar\\\/51c\\\/51cb57991baec1a5e23abbecc277fb70x96.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rpmanetworks.com\\\/atomkraftclonesite-english\\\/wp-content\\\/wphb-cache\\\/gravatar\\\/51c\\\/51cb57991baec1a5e23abbecc277fb70x96.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Theis Palm\"},\"description\":\"Spokesperson and founder\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rpmanetworks.com\\\/atomkraftclonesite-english\\\/author\\\/theis\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Nuclear waste \u2013 an already solved problem that will never be solved enough anyway","description":"Har atomkraft et affaldsproblem? Rasmus Toft-Petersen, seniorforsker ved DTU, mener ikke, at atomaffald udg\u00f8r nogen reel ricisi mod samfundet.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/atomaffald-et-allerede-lost-problem-der-alligevel-aldrig-bliver-lost-nok\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Nuclear waste \u2013 an already solved problem that will never be solved enough anyway","og_description":"Har atomkraft et affaldsproblem? Rasmus Toft-Petersen, seniorforsker ved DTU, mener ikke, at atomaffald udg\u00f8r nogen reel ricisi mod samfundet.","og_url":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/atomaffald-et-allerede-lost-problem-der-alligevel-aldrig-bliver-lost-nok\/","og_site_name":"Foreningen Atomkraft Ja Tak","article_published_time":"2020-09-01T09:43:49+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-06-01T16:40:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":840,"height":567,"url":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/https-www-world-nuclear-org-getmedia-0b1354a2-03.jpeg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Theis Palm","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Theis Palm","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/atomaffald-et-allerede-lost-problem-der-alligevel-aldrig-bliver-lost-nok\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/atomaffald-et-allerede-lost-problem-der-alligevel-aldrig-bliver-lost-nok\/"},"author":{"name":"Theis Palm","@id":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/#\/schema\/person\/5480ff79f502216a9f269e0629c5b30a"},"headline":"Nuclear waste \u2013 an already solved problem that will never be solved enough anyway","datePublished":"2020-09-01T09:43:49+00:00","dateModified":"2023-06-01T16:40:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/atomaffald-et-allerede-lost-problem-der-alligevel-aldrig-bliver-lost-nok\/"},"wordCount":4738,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/atomaffald-et-allerede-lost-problem-der-alligevel-aldrig-bliver-lost-nok\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/https-www-world-nuclear-org-getmedia-0b1354a2-03.jpeg","articleSection":["Atomkraft"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/atomaffald-et-allerede-lost-problem-der-alligevel-aldrig-bliver-lost-nok\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/atomaffald-et-allerede-lost-problem-der-alligevel-aldrig-bliver-lost-nok\/","url":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/atomaffald-et-allerede-lost-problem-der-alligevel-aldrig-bliver-lost-nok\/","name":"Nuclear waste \u2013 an already solved problem that will never be solved enough anyway","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/atomaffald-et-allerede-lost-problem-der-alligevel-aldrig-bliver-lost-nok\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/atomaffald-et-allerede-lost-problem-der-alligevel-aldrig-bliver-lost-nok\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/https-www-world-nuclear-org-getmedia-0b1354a2-03.jpeg","datePublished":"2020-09-01T09:43:49+00:00","dateModified":"2023-06-01T16:40:51+00:00","description":"Har atomkraft et affaldsproblem? Rasmus Toft-Petersen, seniorforsker ved DTU, mener ikke, at atomaffald udg\u00f8r nogen reel ricisi mod samfundet.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/atomaffald-et-allerede-lost-problem-der-alligevel-aldrig-bliver-lost-nok\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/atomaffald-et-allerede-lost-problem-der-alligevel-aldrig-bliver-lost-nok\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/atomaffald-et-allerede-lost-problem-der-alligevel-aldrig-bliver-lost-nok\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/https-www-world-nuclear-org-getmedia-0b1354a2-03.jpeg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/https-www-world-nuclear-org-getmedia-0b1354a2-03.jpeg","width":840,"height":567,"caption":"https:\/\/www.world-nuclear.org\/getmedia\/0b1354a2-0347-4bb3-a5e5-92fc5493f78d\/Wet-storage-SKB.jpg.aspx"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/atomaffald-et-allerede-lost-problem-der-alligevel-aldrig-bliver-lost-nok\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Nuclear waste \u2013 an already solved problem that will never be solved enough anyway"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/#website","url":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/","name":"Foreningen Atomkraft Ja Tak","description":"- Brug hjernen, split kernen","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/#organization","name":"Foreningen Atomkraft Ja Tak","url":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/logo-med-hjemmeside-uden-baggrund.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/logo-med-hjemmeside-uden-baggrund.png","width":1452,"height":1470,"caption":"Foreningen Atomkraft Ja Tak"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/#\/schema\/person\/5480ff79f502216a9f269e0629c5b30a","name":"Theis Palm","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/51c\/51cb57991baec1a5e23abbecc277fb70x96.jpg63f121f060de139aa90f00086b0d07a7","url":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/51c\/51cb57991baec1a5e23abbecc277fb70x96.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/51c\/51cb57991baec1a5e23abbecc277fb70x96.jpg","caption":"Theis Palm"},"description":"Spokesperson and founder","url":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/author\/theis\/"}]}},"uagb_featured_image_src":{"full":["https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/https-www-world-nuclear-org-getmedia-0b1354a2-03.jpeg",840,567,false],"thumbnail":["https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/https-www-world-nuclear-org-getmedia-0b1354a2-03-150x150.jpeg",150,150,true],"medium":["https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/https-www-world-nuclear-org-getmedia-0b1354a2-03-300x203.jpeg",300,203,true],"medium_large":["https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/https-www-world-nuclear-org-getmedia-0b1354a2-03-768x518.jpeg",768,518,true],"large":["https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/https-www-world-nuclear-org-getmedia-0b1354a2-03.jpeg",840,567,false],"betterdocs-category-thumb":["https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/https-www-world-nuclear-org-getmedia-0b1354a2-03.jpeg",360,243,false],"1536x1536":["https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/https-www-world-nuclear-org-getmedia-0b1354a2-03.jpeg",840,567,false],"2048x2048":["https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/https-www-world-nuclear-org-getmedia-0b1354a2-03.jpeg",840,567,false],"woocommerce_thumbnail":["https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/https-www-world-nuclear-org-getmedia-0b1354a2-03-300x300.jpeg",300,300,true],"woocommerce_single":["https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/https-www-world-nuclear-org-getmedia-0b1354a2-03-600x405.jpeg",600,405,true],"woocommerce_gallery_thumbnail":["https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/https-www-world-nuclear-org-getmedia-0b1354a2-03-100x100.jpeg",100,100,true]},"uagb_author_info":{"display_name":"Theis Palm","author_link":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/author\/theis\/"},"uagb_comment_info":5,"uagb_excerpt":"As climate policy moves higher up the agenda in most countries, nuclear power is being reconsidered. In some respects, the debate on nuclear power is new, since, unlike in the 70s, CO2 freedom is the central argument in favor of nuclear power. Today, we have a massive waste problem, in the form of CO2 emissions,…","authors":[{"term_id":46,"user_id":3,"is_guest":0,"slug":"theis","display_name":"Theis Palm","avatar_url":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/51c\/51cb57991baec1a5e23abbecc277fb70x96.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3296","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3296"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3296\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3298"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3296"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3296"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3296"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rpmanetworks.com\/atomkraftclonesite-english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=3296"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}