a few weeks, I opened a poll on "Reintroduction of nuclear energy in Italy" , a subject quite in vogue at the beginning of last summer. The results of the survey (above the graph) with the question: 'E' right to reintroduce nuclear energy in Italy " were 7 (33%) for SI, 13 (61%) for NO and 1 ( 4%) with DO NOT KNOW . In September I wrote a text about this topic, where I support my own argument and try to justify it through the topics. It is therefore a text argument with the thesis: "No to nuclear power." You can read below.
Reintroduction of nuclear energy in Italy: big mistake
The statements of the minister are wrong Scajola
In the current decade are occurring at different crises' world economy, due to many reasons, but one that is heard is the nearest energy crisis. The cause of the latter is, in my opinion, the rise in oil prices as a result of Higher demand: the black gold is, in fact, increased about one hundred dollars per barrel in less than four years, rising from forty-five U.S. dollars to one hundred forty-five August 2004 to July 2008. So the question naturally arises: "What will we do if the cost of crude rise again?". What's more, this event also led to skyrocketing prices of electricity and gas, and in Italy, where the electricity bill is 30% more expensive than the average of other European countries, the rise was even more evident than in the rest of the EU.
The current government has probably discussed these issues before the Minister for Economic Development Claudio Scajola, speaking to the assembly of Confindustria in May 2008, said the only solution to the current difficulties is a return to nuclear , not considered appropriate in 1987 by about 71% of Italians . According to the newspaper "La Repubblica", the minister also said that the atom is the only way to produce electricity " safely and environmentally 'and that through it you can make the bill" compatible compared to other European countries. " The construction of power plants should start, at least theoretically, within the current legislature. Among the enthusiasts of the idea are the two companies, which supply electricity " Enel " and " Edison", both expressed their ready to cooperate with the government for this project.
However, as you might suppose, there were the dissenting opinions (of Legambiente, WWF), which I fully share. I am indeed surprised by the statements of Minister Scajola and I think that the reintroduction of nuclear power in Italy would be a grave error for a number of reasons that can not be ignored.
First, the energy crisis is not just about electricity that Italy imports only to 12.8% from abroad, but also and especially applies to fuel and heat for heating. Since nuclear power plants produce only electricity, which represents only 15% of consumption , is now evident the futility of re-introduction of the atom, because the remaining 85% (fuel and heat above) would still be in difficulties.
Admitting to close an eye on this weak point, it becomes clear, however, realize that to make nuclear generation a significant energy source, eliminating the import of foreign, is necessary to build at least ten plants: the cost of these would vary according to Legambiente, between thirty and fifty billion € , largely Highways. The second reason to say "No" to nuclear power is, therefore, its high price : this must be added that, by requiring the atom exorbitant funding in OECD countries from 1992 to 2005 58% of funds for research have been devoted to the latter, while the remaining 11% went to renewable energy. In the event that it approved the reintroduction of this source is expensive, the others would slow down its growth to the lack of investment.
Since such high costs, it is unlikely that the bill is lighter, in fact, could also be that the electricity price is increased to meet the costs.
Pollution is a serious problem, so that EU states have pledged to reduce by 30% CO 2 2020: but nuclear power is, indirectly, due to emissions because, for safety reasons, require materials for their production, are in need of coal and oil. With nuclear power goals set by the European Union (20% of energy production from renewable sources) would never be achieved.
Some sources say that the wells petroleum supply the humanity for about forty years, so it is necessary to find other energy resources and stop counting black gold. The same applies to the nuclear uranium resources are not infinite, enough for a few decades ! Italy also has no mines of atomic fuel and the should matter, just as they do now with electricity.
The construction of power plants take a long, long time : starting to build in this term, would come into operation as early as 2020, ie more than ten years between . This source should not even in terms of time. And then there
the problem of space for the building . It 'was not found a suitable place to reprocess the nuclear waste of the first nuclear energy, which, in fact, have been transported to France: it will be equally impossible to find land to build new power plants.
spaces used for the production of atomic energy are no longer reusable at the end of the life cycle of plants, as is the case with those where wind turbines are installed. During normal operation of power plants there may be minor emissions of radioactive material which, for example, could be harmful for agriculture there.
do not agree with the reintroduction of nuclear power in Italy because this energy source to produce electricity, need large quantities of water : water, in fact, that occurs after the fission of radioactive material, is heated and the steam starts to move a turbine that creates, of course, electricity. The problem is that the rainfall on the peninsula are 100mm/anno while the average rainfall in Europe is six times more 650mm/anno. Needless to say, there is sometimes a risk water. And if France, which has more water resources, had to slow down several times its industry Atomic, what would be the solution in Italy? It seems obvious: the positioning of the central near the lakes or coastal , with negative consequences for tourism. Nuclear power would certainly be too!
nuclear plants produce waste and are not environmentally friendly as stated by the Minister Scajola . The problem of nuclear waste is still alive: they remain active for over 500 generations. In addition, the cost of decommissioning at the end of the life cycle and the final management of waste are not known . With the nuclear
Italy will continue to depend abroad, mainly from France, regarding the importation and the cycle of the fuel.
say no to nuclear power in Italy because is not a safe source of energy : has links with the arms industry , which produces nuclear weapons using plutonium extracted from waste materials. They are also not completely excluded possible accidents, such as the infamous Chernobyl, and others of lesser severity. They can also be terrorist attacks should not be underestimated, which, if damaged a central, could endanger the lives of many people.
power plants, as already mentioned, when in operation can emit small amounts of radiation that could contaminate the population living in localities near the central or officials of the plant.
The study continues Atomic Energy. E 'in development a generation IV reactor that probably will ensure greater safety of nuclear power, will reduce the production of waste and will be ready in 2030 to 2040. The decision taken by Minister Scajola thus implies a investment in outdated technology !
The last reason why I disagree with the government's decision is the existence routes safer, cheaper, faster and cleaner through which you can fight the energy crisis: I'm talking about renewables, particularly wind energy and solar . In these types need to invest! I'm not saying to abandon the financing of nuclear power, but for this you need to develop what is cheaper and safer for the population. I'm not saying even reach 23% of national demand by means of wind energy as did Denmark, but you might get groped by the same objective using a great resource: the sun , that in a year send to Earth a amount of energy equal to 10,000 times the global demand . In this way one could achieve the aim by the EU: the 20% of energy production from renewable sources by 2020 , given that Italy is already at 13.4%. Along this road you could definitely say goodbye nuclear energy, as has already been done in 1987 and how she's doing now that Germany has pledged to close the last plant in 2020.
We can therefore say that the nuclear represents the past and deny that the decisions taken two decades ago would only be a serious mistake, that can worsen the energy situation current.
I want to make a clarification on the text. The decision to take the argument as "No to nuclear" is not connected to my political beliefs. What is written above is only my opinion on the issue of atomic energy. I was amazed at the fact 7 IT Survey. So I asked a question on Answers asking Yahoo! favorable opinions of this energy source, here's the question and answers: Question
: Hello everyone. In the summer I wrote an argumentative text on the "No to nuclear" and now I want to put it in a post on my blog. For, although it is an argumentative text that explicitly states one of my idea, I still want to evaluate the positive side of nuclear power, could you tell me your personal opinions regarding this source? Only the positive opinions, not negative ones? Then take them and insert them in the form of citation. If you want to ask something because you also add the details replying. Thanks.
Answer 1: you could insert the text: D .. cmq io sn so sorry for the no nn be of help:)
Answer 2: IS THE NUCLEAR SO THAT brings us a little money
Answer 3: no to nuclear.
Answer 4: I would say why not nuclear??! first of all for those who do not know even in Italy we use electricity generated by nuclear power! ... In fact part of Italy buys energy from France and France mainly produces energy from nuclear power plants. Some people say no to nuclear power because an accident would happen if invaded by the radiation, it is ok but there are nuclear plants in France and then there would be an accident if it happened in the same way a threat to us. However, we are saying that the dangers are now in power do not exist, now using reactors are much safer than Chernobyl and Chernobyl, however, that is an argument in part because if they went to look for as they have moved beyond those reactors their scope and were manned by incompetent staff! The main problem of radioactive waste and nuclear power are therefore necessary to seek suitable places for storage. However, we are developing plants that work with other heavy metals such as strontium very limited amount of waste they produce. So ... for me, nuclear is the future! Regards
Answer 5: Absolutely ... leads and gain at least stop using more oil, which is ending in brackets, with regard to the waste solution will
The answers do not But I was very pleased, as most of the claims (eg leads gain) are denied attreverso data of my text. A prorposito data: not me they are fictional, though some thought he might. I visited the sites of the WWF / Legambiente / Greenpeace and others to form a Dossier. The following result links for most of my sources.
WWF Text Ultimately, you are accepting comments (even against) related to my post on nuclear power. I conclude by paying a thanks to the sites from which I collected information (such as WWF, The Republic ...) you can visit by clicking on the various links at the top.
0 comments:
Post a Comment