Sweden’s “Energiforsk” should remove misleading reports on nuclear power”.
Do you want an energy policy based on opinions and misleading information
or should we demand an energy policy based on research and facts?
Basing our energy policy on opinions without factual basis is bad, but even worse
is that the research company Energiforsks is currently providing Sweden’s
politicians with incorrect and misleading information about the
possibilities of nuclear power, writes energy consultant Hugo Franzén in a
debate post on SMB.
Some time ago I met a politician who claimed that we
must invest in nuclear power if we want a sustainable energy supply. The
politician was adamant in his conviction and referred to a “research report
from the UN where the authors concluded that nuclear power is an
indispensable tool for achieving the global sustainability goals formulated
in Agenda 2030″.
I work as an energy consultant and know that the UN does
not take such positions and was then curious about the source. I searched
and found the mentioned report on Energiforsk’s website, see further on
this link. On the website, Energiforsk highlights the report and writes,
among other things, “The 155-page long report states that nuclear power is
an indispensable tool for achieving the global sustainability goals
formulated in Agenda 2030″.
I emailed Energiforsk’s CEO, Markus Vråke, and
asked if it was a fact-based conclusion that was presented on the website
and that Energiforsk stood behind. Markus then replied “We do not stand
behind other people’s messages”. Now that Energiforsk’s CEO admits that it
is not a conclusion that can be drawn from the report but rather an
opinion, or a message from the report authors, I suggested that they should
remove the report from the website, or alternatively be clear that the
report is misleading and has no scientific support . Markus Vråke did not
respond to my email but continues to mislead by highlighting the report on
the website as a credible source of knowledge.
Supermiljobloggen 12th Aug 2023
No comments yet.
-
Archives
- January 2026 (118)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS



Leave a comment