Let the point on Nuclear (Monia Benini)
In 1987 the Italians in a referendum had already said no to nuclear power very clearly, but despite this, In 2008, the government tramples on the wishes expressed by the citizens, establishing a return to nuclear power in Italy, a few months later, the prime minister an agreement signed with France patently illegal, while ENEL - privatized - no qualms for some time to build nuclear power plants in Eastern Europe with the same technology of the Chernobyl plant, noting that the much vaunted "fourth generation" of plants should wait for decades.
Staying at our national territory, according to the instructions of the Decrees of the Government, we would already have known of the sites where the plants will be located and stored radioactive waste, but the proximity of the appointment with the vote in different regions, not to upset the electorate, it was decided to refer the claim to "better times". Indeed, as if this were to be more quiet, the Secretary for Economic Development Stefano Saglia states that "The route to be set of 'criteria for site identification and protection of public health and the environment," and "by these criteria it can make a map Italy identifying appropriate macro-areas according to the government to host a central, but certainly not to identify a single site. "But what is worse, according to the state Saglia, the precise location of the construction of a" come to knowledge when an operator will ask the government to certify according to the rules this site.
Meanwhile, the media and various characters (not least the prof. Umberto Veronesi) deep their efforts in the sale of "truth" more appropriate to support the big business of the atom:
nuclear power is necessary, nuclear power is safe, nuclear power will make Italy independent from the energy point of view, all countries are investing in nuclear power etc. ... Thus, for many people because it says the TV is "reality", we are witnessing a slow but relentless conditioning of the public, increasingly open and available in a choice against both uneconomical and dangerous. As if that were not enough, in many Italian dioceses was sponsored by ENEL distributed materials in support of nuclear hoping that the authorities religious are noticed only after astatine stratagem of SpA, there are extenuating circumstances to the parties that declare themselves in Italy and anti-nuclear push for a new referendum, then voting in favor of pro nuclear decisions at European level.
obvious question then arises: what is the 'affaire
nuclear if there is such a race to the Eldorado of the atom? Documents in hand, except for manufacturers / investors are not distorted and fraudulent mechanisms used as already happens for the portion that we pour into our CIP 6 ENEL bills for renewable energy sources and - through the stratagem of the word "comparable" - are distributed to farmers that invest in incinerators, gas turbines and biomass power plants, construction of a nuclear power and the corresponding electricity production is uneconomic.
For twenty years the number of plants in the world is stable (about 440 plants), and the vast majority are older second-generation power plants (such as Chernobyl and Three Mile Island). In Australia, where are located the world's largest deposits of uranium, was never built any nuclear facility. For the annual standard operation of a plant used 160,000 tons of material, which will be reprocessed, so you can get only 160 tons of uranium useful. The 159,840 tons of waste are impregnated of chemicals used for the reprocessing and contain naturally radioactive isotopes. The cost of uranium and plutonium, an exhaustible resource, has grown remarkably, not cheap making supply, that Italy would guarantee depending once again abroad, since they do not have significant reserves of uranium.
Not to mention the danger of these substances, which is very high: for example, simply inhale less than a millionth of a gram of plutonium to develop lung cancer. The half-life of the radioactivity of plutonium is 24,000 years, while uranium-235 has a half life of 704 million years uranium-238 4.5 billion years. They are so ridiculous proposals aimed at solving the problem through their burial waste (land or sea) in reinforced concrete caissons, whose shelf life is due to an order of magnitude of one hundred years.
So why not respond to the "nuclear" with the resources - clean and renewable - which indeed does our country for the production of electricity, which is the only type of energy produced from nuclear power plants? Micro hydro, solar thermal, photovoltaics, wind allowed a good energy supply and greater distribution of production sources. This, together to rethink the pace of our energy consumption and waste on the intervention of our homes and production structures, it could be a response to the needs of citizens in the name of a human welfare and the environment, not subject to cost implications and Return to the risks inherent in the atom.
In 1987 the Italians in a referendum had already said no to nuclear power very clearly, but despite this, in 2008 the government tramples on the will expressed by citizens, setting out a return to nuclear power in Italy, a few months later, the Prime Minister of an agreement signed with France clearly illegal, while ENEL - privatized - you do not scruples for some time to build nuclear power plants in Eastern Europe with the same technology of the Chernobyl plant, noting that the much vaunted "fourth generation" of plants should wait for decades.
Staying at our national territory, according to the instructions of the Decrees of the Government, we would already have known of the sites where the plants will be located and stored radioactive waste, but the proximity of the appointment with the vote in different regions, not to upset the electorate, it was decided to refer the claim to "better times". Indeed, as if this were to be more relaxed, the Secretary for Economic Development states that Stefano Saglia "The course provides for the set of" criteria for site identification and protection of public health and the environment, "and" by these criteria it can make a map of Italy by identifying appropriate macro-areas according to the government to accommodate a central, but certainly not to identify a single site. "But what is worse, according to the state Saglia, the precise location of the construction of a" come to our attention when an operator will ask the government to certify according to This site rules.
Meanwhile the media and various characters (not least the prof. Umberto Veronesi) lavish their efforts in the sale of "truth" more appropriate to support the big business of the atom: nuclear power is necessary, nuclear power is safe, nuclear power will make Italy independent from the energy point of view, all countries are investing in nuclear power, etc. ... Thus, for many people because it says the TV is "reality", we are witnessing a slow but relentless conditioning of the public, increasingly open and available against both uneconomical and risky choice. As if that were not enough, in many Italian dioceses was sponsored by ENEL distributed materials in support of nuclear hoping that religious authorities have noticed only after astatine stratagem of SpA, there are Mitigating for parties in Italy that is anti-nuclear state and push for a new referendum, then voting in favor of pro nuclear decisions at European level.
obvious question then arises: what is the nuclear affair if there is such a race to the Eldorado of the atom? Documents in hand, except for manufacturers / investors are not distorted and fraudulent mechanisms used as already happens for the portion that we pour into our CIP 6 ENEL bills for renewable energy sources and - through the stratagem of the word "comparable" - are distributed to employers who invest in incinerators, gas turbines and biomass power plants, construction of a nuclear power and the respective electricity production is uneconomic.
For twenty years the number of plants in the world is stable (about 440 plants), and the vast majority are older second-generation power plants (such as Chernobyl and Three Mile Island). In Australia, where are located the world's largest deposits of uranium, was never built any nuclear facility. For the annual standard operation of a plant used 160,000 tons of material, which will be reprocessed, so you can get only 160 tons of uranium useful. The 159,840 tons of waste are impregnated with chemicals used for the reprocessing and contain naturally radioactive isotopes. The cost of uranium and plutonium, an exhaustible resource, has grown remarkably, not cheap making supply, that Italy would guarantee depending once again abroad, since they do not have significant reserves of uranium.
Not to mention the danger of these substances, which is very high: for example, simply inhale less than a millionth of a gram of plutonium to develop lung cancer. The half-life of the radioactivity of plutonium is 24,000 years, while uranium-235 has a half life of 704 million years and uranium-238 4.5 billion years. They are so ridiculous proposals aimed at solving the waste problem through their burial (land or sea) in reinforced concrete caissons, whose shelf life is due to an order of magnitude of one hundred years.
So why not respond to the "nuclear" with the resources - clean and renewable - which indeed does our country for the production of electricity, which is the only type of energy produced from nuclear power plants? Micro hydro, solar thermal, photovoltaics, wind allowed a good energy supply and greater distribution of production sources. This, together with a rethink of the rhythms of our energy consumption and waste on the intervention of our homes and production structures, it could be a response to the needs of citizens in the name of a human welfare and the environment, not subject to cost implications and the risks involved in returning to the atom.
