I find it incredible between the swinging and the attempt to bring criminal in nuclear power for civilian life in Italy.
Advance immediately that my statement is not ideological: the United States, for example, are a nation that could usefully, I think, welcome this form of energy use. I'm not saying that if I were the U.S. president would do, I say only that the U.S. could reasonably choose to use civilian nuclear power.
We do not.
Why?
We are facts and numbers, then we also pretend that a nuclear power plant designed and built today is immune from the risks of the Chernobyl accident or worse.
What did the U.S. that we do not?
Technology: the technology to build nuclear reactors is based on patents almost exclusively held by U.S. corporations and federal agencies. I can not estimate the percentage, but given 6 to 8 billion € (to be optimistic) the cost of a nuclear power, I doubt that the bill be paid in patents that the U.S. is a few cents. We are talking about million €.
That is: in Italy we do not build their own nuclear power stations and we have to buy much of the technology from abroad. This is true in 2010 as in 1980: statements like "Eh, but if we could continue the research that has been blocked by referendum ..." Are ridiculous than offensive in a country that is not real at all. Moreover, a referendum to certain not stopped the nuclear research.
experience. The U.S.
run from the middle decades of military and nuclear reactors.
also have experience in the management of nuclear safety levels unknown to us.
Space: The U.S.
have vast desert areas and geologically stable in which to concentrate the waste. I'm not saying that the United States the right precautions are in place, only that in the vast deserts of the West the space to store the waste there is at least in theory. We will not speak.
Availability of Fuel:
the U.S. producers of uranium and however they can access it more easily that Italy (Canada, Congo ...). Italy does not produce uranium or other fissile material. The fission power stations are powered by a mineral (low), therefore, are not considered renewable energy.
That is, we are still forced to import oil and gas import, we also need to import uranium for nuclear power as a speaker system from an independent mind to make us the obvious.
Ok, this is the country that has repeatedly voted for Berlusconi, the obvious is not a feature on which to rely, unfortunately.
is why, in my opinion, if the U.S. wanted to build a new generation of nuclear fission reactors, I believe that their choice (not disagree) are based on concrete poserebbe reasonable: they know how to build them, how to handle them, where to build (they needed to cool the giant rivers, and we are not we rely on the Po) and where to stock, even improperly, the waste. They also fuel.
We do not have any of that. Let
costs.
Md A nuclear power costs 8 € and lasts twenty years. Management costs are not known and still depend on the fuel price (in constant ascent). Those of disposal are not calculable because to date no one has ever completely eliminated a central (a few thousand tonnes of acciaiocemento radioactive). We
a practical example for my fellow citizens: If tomorrow someone decides to put a bell'impianto sports instead of Cement (in a natural park is perhaps not so farfetched a choice), you may do its calculations and put your wallet and the pick.
If, instead of cement plant there was a nuclear power plant this would not be possible since no one today is able to restore the soil occupied by a nuclear power plant under the conditions above ...
With Md of € 8 can be mounted about 2.700 GW peak of photovoltaic products of 4 GWh per annum. By coming to terms with the abacus, it means that with 8 Md € PV produce 80 GWh in 20 years. Everything from the Sun, where produce consumption because without loss, without using soil because the plant is on the roof surface cementified already the "Bel Paese is more than sufficient to accommodate the solar panels necessary to meet all needs national
Italy consumes annually 340,000 GWh per year. To produce them all with PV would install 220 to 260 GW of peak power, photovoltaic, or would need to cover just over 10,000 (but less than 20000) square miles of roof ...
All calculated costs and returns 2010.
I remind you that in Italy about 10% of the territory is built and talk with more than 30,000 square kilometers of territory already cemented.
I say that our energy needs from photovoltaics mounted on the existing ceilings will be fine in there ...
the price of the 6 stations planned, then we might get a little something from Brother Sun as 16 GW of photovoltaic peak, about 5% of our needs to be pessimistic to the cube: if the ENEL to launch a similar operation I think we at least double that figure in economies of scale and falling panel prices.
All the hefty sum of 10 € cents per kWh photovoltaic product ...
Forum nuclear, as the cost of kWh, nuclear power provides figures ranging between 7 and 20 € cent
... I mean, their numbers ...
Take my calculations with a grain of salt, partly because the data on the costs of nuclear power, as opposed to those on photovoltaics, are inconsistent and somewhat hidden.
added, however, the fact that the price of solar kWh is steadily downhill.
It turns out that nuclear energy, while dropping the problems mentioned above, will now cost maybe a little 'less solar energy will cost, but certainly more than the sun in a couple of years. ..
Given the time involved the comparison, rationally speaking, it is pitiful ...
A nuclear power plant to be built in five years, individual photovoltaic systems in a few days.
If, instead of spending the figures in this uneconomic folly would invest in renewable energy (wind power exists to give us a hand when there is no sun) would trigger a virtuous cycle that could really make us independent sources for fissile the production of electricity within a few decades.
course, the Sun at night there.
course, the wind does not always there.
But there is hydrogen.
There are already systems that directly convert solar energy into hydrogen.
Nothing forbids us to store energy in the form of hydrogen produced via solar day to use it at night, in bad weather, cars ...
Yeah, the car: a nuclear power plant does not solve the problem of gasoline: the combined cycle solar - hydrogen, however, yes.
Certainly not in 2020.
Meanwhile, in 2020, a rational country, may have already seen their oil consumption drop dramatically due to renewable energies. By then we will also be ready to abandon the station.
Provided that our money can go away in the pockets of the usual suspects advocates of nuclear technology expensive and inadequate.
Well, I've been good: I have neither raised the specter of the accident nor that of mismanagement of slag.
The only reason to resort to nuclear, I think, is to make credible the incredible science fiction film to "Independence Day" and loosen one megaton of power in the hangar of the ship and the alien invaders so bad fools to use windows so that our heroes can infect their computers and gain access ...
The rest expect a fusion reactor working, first, dear Friends atomic, do not come back here, please ...
Really, there is no need at all to decide for anti-nuclear fear.
Just do it by poverty.
And a desire to wealth.
0 comments:
Post a Comment