against the deception involved now dominant, we need to give more accurate and concise answers, in order to allow the formation of opinions is not wrong and not distorted by narrow interests.
WHO DOES NOT WANT TO BE "maneuver, try to calmly assess the following.
REALLY THE OPINION OF TECHNICAL SUPPORTS TO NUCLEAR?
The answer is: Depends on the honesty of the technicians. We must first realize that, in favor of the adoption of nuclear power, ALWAYS are acting GIGANTIC ECONOMIC INTERESTS. A central the cost of a nuclear magnitude (5-10 billion euro), and creates an absolute constraint, and "eternal" with the manufacturers for its maintenance. A great deal simply, that justifies the huge efforts for "address" public opinion. How? By providing wrong information to opinion-makers with the dossier part, by bribing politicians and opinion-makers, funding pilot studies and public events "spontaneous", and so on. In our country, these men have for decades the game very easy, thanks to newspapers SOLD, or just unable to do embarrassing questions. And in fact only by us is still the "doubt" so strong among the people. Who mentions the hyper-nuclear France, fails to mention that the same is now so tied to nuclear (80% of energy produced!), because of the choices of the militarist past, now he can not renounce nuclear even if it wanted.
THE "CENTRAL NEW GENERATION" Are they safe?
The so-called "new generation of nuclear power" in STRAPARLANO politicians concerned, that is what they say they want to build (but then will the old one), AND 'REALLY' the old type of plants with only some changes for more safety. But it's just a little accident-prone 'less than before. And although that will be "auto spegnenti" in case of problems, it is also true that any spills will radiottive More serious. In any case, the true "new generation" of plants, will be between 10-15 years. To build and then test, and then start producing a plant it takes at least ten years. But we probably many more.
If you start TODAY SOLVE THE ENERGY PROBLEM?
One Central (the old guy with tricks) as has been said a lot of great cost, and Italy could not start more than one year. But the energy contribution of a single station, although the cost would be minimal. In fact, it would take at least a dozen, just to start, then getting up at least twice ... And in the meantime? In that way we cover the need for immediate future? And those in the medium term? The answer is not 'with other interventions, for example with the "renewable" because in the meantime, WE WILL HAVE BLOCKED ALL economic resources to build nuclear power plants. So we say farewell to every incentive for solar photovoltaic, solar thermal, wind, geothermal, building insulation, and so on. In short, THE END OF RENEWABLE ENERGY, while the rest of the world is going in opposite directions.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN WITH THE REAL "NEW GENERATION" OF CENTRAL? When
between 10-15 years will be (maybe) the new generation, the real one, totally different from today, we Italians simply find you have DISCARD HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF EURO, and we start again with the new. Why do we lay all the others, for their own safety.
where to put the Score?
do not know, after decades STILL do not have THAT, and not to be denied, do not continue to tell us. Why even abroad still have not solved the problem, and go ahead with temporary situations, usually TERRITORIES militarized. We Italians can not find the place the garbage because nobody wants to (understandably) landfill close to home and want to find a place for hazardous radioactive substances? For which the people involved certainly fought ANCOR PIÙ CHE CONTRO LE DISCARICHE DI RIFIUTI?
SOSTITUIREMMO IL PETROLIO, COSTOSO E IN ESAURIMENTO?
Sostituiremmo una risorsa costosa e in esaurimento come il petrolio (solo quello bruciato nelle centrali termiche), con una ANCORA PIÙ COSTOSA ed UGUALMENTE IN ESAURIMENTO. Perché anche di Uranio ce n'è poco, ed è molto richiesto, e le miniere sono in pochi Paesi che lo danno A CHI VOGLIONO E SE VOGLIONO, e comunque a caro prezzo perché anche l'Uranio finirà. E chi lo usa risente di speculazioni e prezzi crescenti, ed è oggetto di RICATTI POLITICI, proprio come col petrolio. Con la differenza che il petrolio ce l'hanno in tanti (perfino noi ne abbiamo grossi giacimenti little used). Instead URANIUM have it in a few. And, as we have said, there is little, so little that the French now find convenient to "recycle" the old Soviet nuclear warheads. And its price increases. Also, do not forget that uranium is a hazardous material.
HOW MUCH REALLY NUCLEAR ENERGY PRODUCTION?
accounts that are interested in the technical and political, are totally false. The electricity production of nuclear energy seem cheap compared to other sources, not only because we consider the hidden costs. Nuclear power plants are crammed with hidden costs, but nobody tells us. Security is one of the hidden costs. You need the involvement of the Army, Air Force and Civil Police Forces, Civil Protection of the many research institutions, and of course the Government of supranational supervision. All very high costs and continuous, but not calculated. When you need to periodically transfer the waste deposits (probably foreign, for a fee), there are also hidden costs high, just think of special purpose vehicles, trains made on purpose, to huge civil and military surveillance, the normal traffic and normal activities interrupted, and so on. All things that are expensive, but never calculated. Sooner or later inevitably happens when an accident (usually it happens quite often minor, and sometimes even larger than) the main stops for long or very long time, even years, and the lack of production is itself a cost, not always calculated. But if we put in the account to return to normal operations (analysis, inspection, possible decontamination, technical and administrative investigations, repairs, spare parts, labor and external expertise, compensation, etc..), We can get an idea of additional costs never calculated. We want to think then AS TERRITORY need for a nuclear plant? So much so, indeed, very much. And will not be recovery, even after the dismantling of the plant, but the cost of what is not calculated. Not even the loss of value of the areas and nearby buildings, is not calculated. About decommissioning, it will be time to close the central ... They are all contaminated materials and dangerous, should be disposed of according to strict rules, by specialist technical teams, and with a very long time. It turns out that the dismantling and "made safe" all things will be much higher and building, and that this is a hidden cost, well concealed.
BEYOND THE ECONOMIC, SOCIAL IS THERE A COST?
The nuclear option inevitably leads to a greater militarization, if only for reasons of increased need for surveillance and security. More barracks, more exercises, more roadblocks, more control of the military on civilian life. DOWN national sovereignty, under the Treaties and international controls. Nuclear energy presents and arrange for the military and politicians to the temptation to make Italy a "nuclear power" because "there is so much technology." Increases and makes the most serious risk of attacks from within and without. In short, it would have a less quiet serenity and a society less, more controlled and less independent. But it must also be considered HEALTH. Official statistics on the incidence of cancer among workers in the central and the population in their vicinity, NOT TRUE, perché si fermano a periodi limitati di tempo, e ignorano molti fattori, fra cui la sinergia con altre concause.
TUTTO SOMMATO, IL NUCLEARE CONVIENE O NO?
CERTO che conviene!!! E anzi, bisogna sbrigarsi, perché IL MOMENTO È FAVOREVOLE, ora o mai più! MA SOLO SE siete costruttori, progettisti o finanziatori. Oppure POLITICI CORROTTI O DISINFORMATI, naturalmente. A tutto il resto della popolazione il nucleare NON SOLO NON CONVIENE affatto, ma NEPPURE RISOLVE il problema energetico, e ANZI LO AGGRAVA. Perché una volta dentro, cioè una volta firmati i contratti, non se ne esce per almeno 10 anni, a meno di pagare PENALI GIGANTESCHE. E con gli enormi investimenti necessari, THERE will be no place for government intervention and incentives for renewable energy.
THEN WHY INSIST ON NUCLEAR?
This time the answer is very short. Only for the money. MANY.
Meditate, people, meditate.
SOURCE: http://www.xmx.it/
