" Nuclear plants have been shown to 'keep bang', who was inspired by the tragedy that struck Japan in order to create a political controversy is a jackal."
( Chicco Testa currently chairman of the Nuclear Forum Italian, ' March 11, just hours after the earthquake)
" safe nuclear test of nine- If a state acts first we can say is that just the terrible intensity of the phenomenon which hit Japan gives us a new confirmation that the safety of nuclear facilities, the progress made in recent decades have been remarkable .
" The Italian government's position on nuclear is still what it is, is that you can not change your mind every minute .
( Fabrizio Cicchitto March 12 )
" Nuclear power plants are safe. Those who are against is still an old ideological thinking that is based on false assumptions .
" The issue of nuclear safety goes across national borders. There are stations in Slovenia and France, and if there were any disaster strikes there too. Many submissions also I read that the Japanese are not central to the latest generation. In Italy, the latest generation of nuclear power plants. My hope is that you decide on the wave of emotion .
( Gianfranco Fini March 13 ) "nuclear and non I have changed my mind after the tragedy of Japan. The earthquake and Japanese 'was a thousand times greater than that of L'Aquila ".
( Pier Ferdinando Casini - March 13 ) " These central effects on the whole much more 'limited than the rest. Nothing per se 'and' safe. The progress brings with it 'risk margins. If it 's why I fell out of the dams, and then what do we do? We do not build more 'dams? ".
( Pier Ferdinando Casini the March 14 ) " Repubblica speaks of nightmare for a second Chernobyl, the' Done 'mocks But the safety of facilities facts belie them: the death of a worker, were evacuated thousands of people, but not a disaster .
( Franco Battaglia Il Giornale the March 14 )
"The government's line does not change and there is" no underestimation "of the risks bound to the"
( Stefania Prestigiacomo March 15 ) ******** ***********
Dal'homepage of Corriere della Sera, March 15 morning
from the homepage of the Corriere della Sera, March 15 evening
The incompetence of all those who have heard the need to minimize what is happening in Fukushima for the sole purpose of protecting the design of the Italian return to nuclear power is already apparent only with the speed with which these "scientists" are disseminated and understood the absolute truth, heedless of a seismic event still course and the possibility of damage or accidents at nuclear power plants in the north east of Japan could be worsening with the passage of hours. Now they are coming regularly disproved by damage to the cooling systems of reactors at the Fukushima central I (but there are also problems with the central Fukushima Onagawa and II) that if you have so far caused "only" hydrogen leaks resulting in explosions and fires is not still 100% exclusive that might lead to partial or total fusion core (or fissile materials and coatings that contain them) and the simultaneous failure of the various levels of containment, resulting in a mass escape of radioactive seriously contaminate the external environment, then the worst case scenario is that in these hours you are trying to prevent in any way, even with unorthodox methods as long as you manage to cool the reactors, such as' use of sea water , but in contact with boric acid, which absorbs neutrons of nuclear fission forever affect the functionality of the reactors.
Meanwhile, in North-East Japan 's alarm radioactivity (that someone had thrown almost immediately ) continues to grow at this time, not only in the 20 km radius around the plant, but in a wider area that comes to lap Tokyo while multinational companies and embassies are urging citizens and employees to leave the Rising Sun, and Lufthansa has suspended flights to the capital of Japan.
So the first time are minimized shamed and humiliated by a situation that is unfortunately far from being recklessly that they feared immediately after one big, long and strong kick on Friday 11, and after tsunami that followed. Ironically, just those who always oppose the 'anti-nuclear hysteria " have to go over them as prey to a kind of hysteria nuclearists , tell me about that as soon as they realized what was happening Japan could awaken dormant consciences of many Italians, rushed to throw water on the fire. And so, following the typical tradition of Italy for which any international event must take a national identity and a utility in the internal political debate, the alleged Japanese nuclear seal has been used to defend the positions of those who argue a little Italian and defensible nuclear project seems very polished and only for reasons already chosen technology - the French EPR, which does not offer adequate guarantees nor under construction nor during operation, as previously stated by the interesting, and at this time in addition to the French produce and we will buy it to him that nobody in the world now intend to use.
The declarations of these gentlemen made of absolute fidelity to the nuclear matter whatever happens in Japan, leaving no room for doubt: no dialogue, no reason, and not questioning the right decisions 'now taken for the return of Italy to the energy of the atom is a matter Large private interests more than a matter of national interest. who had really good heart health, safety and the pockets of citizens, as well as economic development and energy independence of this country, it would at least closer to what is happening and more responsive to the interests of those who are alarmed, and at least prepared to show openings if not the "if" at least "how to" go nuclear. But even this happens, and even with the blinkers and without shame if they say all sorts to justify the rightness of a choice that is ascribed to Italy, but in reality is the result of the will of a few .
Then in the competence of certain hysterical -nuclear in a matter objectively complex and too often grossly simplified and approximate contradistinction to my incompetence, but I'll try to adduce some simple and accurate facts.
First by incompetent I wonder how the scientist Veronesi can be absolutely certain of the safety of nuclear and accuse those who do not agree with this reasoning with un'obsoleta ideological mindset. To me it seems obvious that an accident at a nuclear plant is so rare, but it is equally obvious - as is unfortunately the case for confirming Fukushima - which is potentially much more dangerous, because the scope and the people involved can be very large. This aspect was also ignored by the journalist Paulo Debbio today in Il Giornale, you can even count the deaths caused by various sources of energy production:
Another chimera is on the dangers of nuclear safety and the total of all other energy sources. Dancing disguised as a chimera. Coal: 7,000 deaths per year of which 5,000 in China alone. Natural gas: in 1983 in Mexico 55 people dead, 7,000 injured, 300,000 people evacuated. Oil: Warri in Nigeria in 1998 to 500 deaths, 500 deaths in 1994 in Seoul. One could go even without remembering Vajont the 2000 deaths, that is hydroelectric.
Again escape what is the main feature of a possible catastrophic nuclear or not the circoscrivibilità contamination, a concept that eludes even the pious dramatically Pier Ferdinando Casini, whose head failure of a dam or a nuclear fusion have the same destructive potential in terms of human and environmental disaster.
And then the leader of the UDC, which emphasizes the extraordinary power of the earthquake of 11 March in comparison to the more modest (?) Aquila almost cataclysmic earthquake were the exclusive preserve of distant exotic lands, it should be noted that the Mediterranean and Italy in the course of history have been hit by huge earthquakes and tsunamis (for example, the devastating earthquake of Thera - Santorini today - in 1267 BC , Eastern Mediterranean in 1202, the Val di Noto in 1693, and Messina and Reggio Calabria in 1908). Besides, the geologist
" The Japanese nuclear power plants were built to withstand an earthquake of 8.5 on the Richter scale. Then what happened? E ' came an earthquake of 8.9, and the structures have not stood ". The Italian plants will be built to withstand the shock of approximately 7.1 degrees, but, as claimed by Tozzi, " who assures us that one day there will come a more powerful earthquake?". No, indeed. Because earthquakes are phenomena that can not be foreseen. In addition, the Japanese disaster occurred in the country's most technologically advanced in the world. In Tokyo is rooted in fact a serious risk culture that is the result of a deep understanding of these phenomena. "With what face tolla various Cicchitto we are selling the idea that in Italy, in the event of an earthquake, things might go better in Japan ?
wonder if Minister Prestigiacomo when he says that the government there is no underestimating the risks of the atom that is sure to mean that you have made a better choice when the in 2009 was signed the memorandum of understanding between Enel and France's EDF, which commits us to buy four third-generation advanced reactors like EPR ... And who knows if the minister knows that in terms of safety EPR technology is proving to be rather inefficient . Do you know whether or not this winter that many of the 58 reactors operating in France have had problems and failures ? They know the president and Prestigiacomo Fini that the central EPR under construction to Flamanville (France) and Olkiluoto (Finland) have seen their costs rise when double and are showing at this stage to have defects the much-vaunted modern security systems , relating also to ' automatic switch that stops the fission when creating dangerous situations that it is the great innovation that would make these plants safer than others? Fini And you know that the latest generation as he calls it, really sure that besides efficient from the standpoint of waste disposal and so on which you could really think, is the fourth generation , whose prototypes, however, will not be available until at least twenty years? And our politicians who say that we were the only which France can sbolognare its technology, which has proved economically disadvantageous also for the rich United Arab with just over a year ago for their ambitious nuclear program rather than focus on providing Areva have opted for a cheaper offer South Korea?
Then let us say, the hysterical-nuclear lacks the dose of intellectual honesty to recognize that we can no longer argue that nuclear energy is the cheapest: it should know that the cost of that energy must be identified not only with the costs of building (let alone in Finland uncontrollable by us) and the operation of power plants and with the price to pay for the purchase of raw materials (primarily uranium and plutonium). The cost of nuclear power must be given also by the fact negative externalities difficult to estimate dates from risk of an accident to the environment and human health , and especially by economic and environmental costs for the storage of radioactive waste , cost is impossible to calculate precisely because it takes 30,000 years confinement so that the waste will become inactive and therefore harmless. Instead the MIT, Massachusetts Institute of Technology with a 2009 study calculated the actual costs for nuclear installations of new construction, and found that the cost of nuclear kWh is higher than that of gas and coal , primarily because of huge investments for the construction of power plants, but also for the time delay of its implementation, and higher borrowing costs (which also tend to make investments in nuclear power plants in times of low interest rates ).
However, even limited to the cost of construction for the installation of four power plants in Italy will account for expenditure oscillating between 20 and 30 billion euro (the range is wide because of the already mentioned uncertainties encountered in the construction of the central EPR), that is between 5 and 8 billion euro in Central Europe. As at Olkiluoto and Flamanville costs have doubled over time is also saying that the expected date of 2020 for commissioning of the first plant in Italy is a date unrealistic, given that no stone will be laid before the first at least three years and since for each plant will take at least a decade of work. It makes sense to spend all this money to them according between 15-20 years?
For goodness sake it is true that the solution of the energy issue should not be based only on the exploitation of renewable energy, it passes through a reasonable and balanced mix of various types of energy sources available, but there are to say that a mix without nuclear energy is not is at least conceivable, even with nuclear because it is not certain that you will give the quick response that Europe intends to take on cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, when in Italy there are no reactors still in operation. When
maybe one day there will be, they should contribute 25% of domestic energy demand, and should also contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. On this last point, however, the conditional is a must, because to be an accurate measure of the reduction of emissions should know the exact dell'elettronucleare energy balance, ie the difference between the energy produced and total energy expenditure throughout the nuclear cycle, from extraction of uranium and plutonium to fission. Considering that Italy would have to purchase and import these raw materials from abroad, and also considering that energy costs more in Italy than elsewhere, one easily understands that nuclear power say that we should reduce our energy bill could cost more to what it costs the electricity and heat that we produce today through the sources and renewable fuels.
Would not it be smarter to focus on cheaper and more innovative projects based on the characteristics and potential of the Italian territory ? For example, the Marsili Project, the first geothermal power plant offshore that could produce energy equivalent to that produced by a medium-sized nuclear power plant using the heat generated by Marsili, the largest active volcano in Europe, located in the Tyrrhenian Sea at 3500 feet a depth of 150 km from the coast of Calabria and Sicily.
About Italian peculiarities, it comes from ask not only where the plants will be built and where the radioactive waste being stored , since no region currently has the availability, even if most times that waste should not become yet another affront to the area and yet another deal for unscrupulous businessmen and ecomafie , in a country where you do not already know how to treat municipal waste , where the traffic industrial waste is a huge source of income for criminal organizations and where the "small" business of 'Wind and solar are not counted fraud and speculation of various cliques.
And then our big business that will be awarded the contracts would be succulent at the completion of such advanced systems? The recent shameful example of Acerra incinerator built by Impregilo already talk alone. Unfortunately these days in Italy where a contract is a crime and a rip-off: in this sense, the mega-contracts in the nuclear scare.
From incompetent I bet that given the extent of the interests at stake (the major energy companies as well as the private developers and their political friends) this government will do everything to continue the its nuclear project, with firm and blind determination. And the facts at least for the moment do not seem to me wrong: for example the news today is that the government intends to cancel the obligation to indicate where it intends to carry out the sites of nuclear power plants, thus preventing the objections of the local authorities concerned. Meanwhile, the safer it will be implemented traditional boycott of the popular referendum, this time on nuclear energy, such failure and privatization of water, along with administrative but not scheduling the June 12, so as to make it more difficult to achieve a quorum. Who knows but that a possible resurgence of anti-nuclear can not bring to the polls many Italians, and who knows a quorum with the contagion effect hypothesis becomes more realistic for the other referendum questions, including legitimate impediment. On 12 June could be a very intriguing day for democracy and the future of this country, and a rare chance to hear our voice to that kind of incompetent. Just want it.
Read the Professor. Angelo Baracca " Nuclear power: a choice of expensive, unnecessary and dangerous "
0 comments:
Post a Comment