Nucleare, un scelta disastrosa !!! ... La prima centrale costruiamola ad Arcore!! No Nukes
Nuclear power does not provide convincing answers to 'climate emergency and the use of the atom could be fatal for frail economy. Yet the "prevailing feeling" of the country suffers the campaign of Berlusconi's government, supported opportunism of the leaders of the Italian economy .
1. senseless undertaking.
According to the IPCC in 2020 we have an emergency weather will not intervene if the first block of reducing fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. In such an early date the use of nuclear power is almost irrelevant. At a nuclear plant, with 40 years of operation expected, need the first 9 years of operation to balance the energy used in construction.
view of 4 and 5 years of work between location and design a system that develops a plant per year would give only positive net energy from 19 ˚ year (also in the plane would arrive at Scajola 2028). If you reach the goal by 2030 threw there by Berlusconi - a doubling of existing nuclear plants in the world - for global emissions of CO2 reduction would be only 5%. Should be a new power plant every 2 weeks by 2030, spending between 1,000 and 2,000 billion euro, increasing the risk of accidents and exacerbating the unresolved issue of nuclear waste.
If we look beyond 2030, nuclear power should weigh at least 20-25% of the electricity mix to slow climate change. It would take at least 3 000 nuclear plants in more (today there are 439): 3 new stations per month until the end of the century, with skyrocketing prices of uranium are being exhausted.
2. Climate and water: environmental emergencies.
Throughout the entire life cycle of uranium from the mine to the reactor, there are less CO2 emissions, but comparable to those accompanying the cycle of natural gas.
emissions are related to operation of the plant, but especially to the stages for the construction, launch, on-site placement of fissile fuel, which can currently be done only with the very high use of fossil fuels in the construction and in the mine. In addition, nuclear facilities need huge amounts of special steel, zirconium, and cement, whose production requires coal and oil .
Summing all the CO2 emitted in the full cycle of a nuclear installation is approximately 40% of that produced by the operation of a central power of natural gas. Not counting the final storage of waste, so many examples.
Nuclear power is intended only for the supply of electricity, which accounts for 15% of end-use energy in the world (the remaining 85% goes to transportation, heat for heating and industrial processes). A critical, often silent in the nuclear process is the amount of water needed. To avoid risk of catastrophic accident the water should flow to the reactors, to remove excess heat, volume 10 times higher than those of conventional power stations with steam leakage in the air and back into bed at high temperatures.
Where atomic chains have undergone a massive expansion, as in France, the water crisis has already occurred. In this country 40% of all fresh water consumed goes to cooling nuclear reactors.
3. Security.
Nuclear power poses a serious and intractable security problems.
At 22 years after the accident at Chernobyl, there are still no guarantees for the contamination of 'normal' radioactive operation, or to eliminate the risk of catastrophic nuclear accident. Small doses of radioactivity in the extraction of uranium and during normal plant operation, can not be detected in real time, but only logged on for subsequent storage.
There workers are exposed, as in the case of three recent incidents consecutive Tricastin, France, and the population living near the plant, as in the recent case of Krsko, Slovenia.
In a combustion process, shutting down the plant ceases production of heat. In a nuclear power plant, however, even when the chain reaction is 'off', the fission products present in the core continue to release heat. If it can not be removed, this results in the fusion fuel and the catastrophic release of radioactive material, which is dispersed in space and remains active over time.
E 'irrepressible eventuality of an expected chances of disaster is inherent in the design, which makes nuclear imponderable risk.
Despite the emphasis that you want put on a hypothetical "fourth generation" operational only after 2030 (?), with reactors capable of eliminating part of the slag (?), the use of blends of fuel less dangerous (?), today can only be achieved Central inherently insecure.
Radioactive waste are among the most well-known problems in relation to nuclear power plants. There are no concrete solutions. The approximately 250 000 tons of radioactive waste produced so far in the world are all awaiting final disposal sites. The problem remains unsolved, resulting in immeasurable effects in economic terms. It would be impossible to deal with it from scratch on a national scale and irresponsible neglect conseguenze. In Italia, però, nel governo nessuno si preoccupa delle scorie prodotte dall'ipotizzato piano nucleare.
4. Esauribilità e costi.
Secondo le stime del World energy council , l'uranio estraibile a costi convenienti è pari a 3,5 milioni di tonnellate, a fronte di un consumo annuo di circa 70 mila tonnellate. Al ritmo attuale l'uranio è disponibile solo per 40-50 anni. Se aumentassero le centrali, inizierebbe una competizione internazionale per questa risorsa scarsa.
Il ciclo nuclear direct and indirect costs are too high, and therefore intended to be downloaded on the community. In fact, nuclear is the most expensive source of energy that there is .
In recent years, the price of uranium has increased six-fold from $ 20 per pound in 2000 to $ 120 in 2007 and is projected to rise. Furthermore, most of the cost of electricity from nuclear power is related to the design and construction of power plants: double the officially declared for the return periods of 20 years. Adding the costs of waste disposal and decommissioning of plants, the figures are imprecise, but higher than the other sources. The kWh from nuclear is cheaper apparently where the state takes care of security, research and management problems, but especially of waste disposal and decommissioning.
is precisely these costs and the possibility of re-thinking of the governments in financial crisis, have discouraged private investment in recent decades.
In Italy, despite the propaganda and Scajola members, nuclear power would reduce the energy bill. In fact, for a total of 10-15 thousand MW of installed capacity on a dozen plants, should be built from scratch the entire supply chain, investing in 30 and 50 billion euro (waste excluded) with the first return after 15 or 20 years and definitely saltier than bills.
article: Mario Agostinelli
Liby
