We shared with the nuclear debate.
Yes, no, maybe. Okay, not good, you can do, you can not do. Does not worth it. Everyone says its
, each claims to be right, bringing water to his mill and acclaim for his "belief" in the matter. All who throw themselves into more or less sensational claims to awaken the general public. Maybe with a little 'new shipyards, including the bridge over the Strait and nuclear power plants, increase GDP and all are better because they have more money.
From what I started this post may seem that I am against nuclear power. Well, it does not. I am not at all opposed to nuclear power as an energy source, but I am opposed to nuclear power now and in ITALY. Probably if I was so young, I would have fought to minimize the 1987 referendum in which (for the uninitiated) has never been asked to choose whether or not to implement the project of nuclear power plants in Italy.
In that referendum to repeal type (which had exceeded the quorum, not like now where there is also the party of abstained) were made three requests:
1) You want to be repealed the provision which allows the CIPE (Interministerial Committee for Economic Planning) to decide on the location of power plants where local authorities do not decide within time?
2) You want to be repealed on compensation to municipalities hosting nuclear power plants or coal?
3) You want to be repealed the provision which allows ENEL (Ente Nazionale Energia Elettrica) to participate in international arrangements for the construction and operation of nuclear facilities abroad? So in practice
Italian citizens are asked to remove the laws in practice to simplify the installation nuclear power plants. In fact it has never been asked whether to launch a national energy plan that prevesse nuclear energy as innovative.
Given the outcome of the referendum (SI 'dry for all questions), the government began to close the yards or to secure the Italian nuclear power plants: in Vercelli, Latina, Caorso (Piacenza), Montalto di Castro (Viterbo).
So with the referendum of 1987 was "de facto" abandonment as set by Italy, the use of nuclear energy as a form of energy supply. In implementation of that referendum, in fact, in 1988 the Italian government, in approving the new "National Energy Plan," approved the moratorium in the use of nuclear fission as an energy source, while launching a program to stop, a short, nuclear fuel assembly.
in fact has been exploited the negative wave of the Chernobyl accident to stop the project "nuclear" in Italy. Veronesi's done here is right when he says "the word nuclear scare of the accidents that might cause. Popular phobias, irrational fears and historical legacies are even more alarm cancer and his deaths caused by oil derivatives. "
Here, I brought up also Veronesi. He, the famous oncologist and former health minister. What has been called come “tecnico”, perché ha lavorato in un ministero che conosce bene, dato che è il suo campo di lavoro.
Proprio Veronesi ha sostenuto un dibattito con il fisico Carlo Rubbia sulla questione nucleare. Ora, c’è un punto che vorrei sottolineare: non so perché ma sembra che in Italia una persona possa comprendere i mille problemi del mondo scientifico solo perché è uno scienziato e ne capisce di scienza.
Mi spiego. Veronesi é un medico oncologo, quindi di fisica non è che ne capisce molto, se non le basi, ma basi basi. Quindi in un confronto con Rubbia sulla questione nucleare non mi sembra che possa dire poi molto, soprattutto discutendo di limiti, benefici, punti sfavorevoli delle nuove ricerche. In fact, reading this repartee between the two, it seems that Veronesi has a position that can be summarized as "in Italy we have not yet nuclear power: you make a move because it is right." Argument seems to me a bit 'lacking, do not you? Especially because it forces the "adversary" to respond with reasons as simplistic.
Rubbia is a physicist (Nobel laureate), is very familiar with the world in question. Therefore I am inclined to give a little 'more attention to him, regardless of his opinion. When I say "to hear" I do not mean "agree with him: I understand that I consider a person a bit ' more knowledgeable about the facts, because it goes beyond the emotional fervor of the moment and wave (positive or negative) of persons, and therefore the most reliable because I think he rattles off facts and figures, not words and speeches parochial or advertising. Would it have been more appropriate to a repartee between two physicists from opposite positions, there just to see the reliability of opinions, facts and data.
It 's also true that this is only an opinion of Veronesi, but often a review, brought to the fore and momentarily dragged by emotions of the people, it becomes much more.
And here I refer to my initial opinion: why not now nuclear and Italy.
Industry experts are well aware that oil will end sooner or later: the same fate is reserved for uranium. It is estimated that the natural stocks end up in 35-40 years. Now, an energy plan that puts on paper involves the construction of nuclear power plants by 2010 and each plant needs at least 8 years for one building (and we all know how reliable are the construction time of building works in our beautiful country) . Each station would cost € 5-6 billion and would cost a net income after 10 years of starting. Making two quick calculations would remain less than 20 years of active exploitation of our future power plants.
We want to build the same? Okay. But Who shall bear the total cost? In France the state has done everything myself, but they have 58 stations, the last of which was built 20 years ago. And now I'm already 10 years in the black. And it was inevitable for the government to increase bills for the public and private utilities, just to absorb the cost. Perhaps it is better to find individuals, but around the corner there is always the risk privatization, so hated and so loved.
Looking at the other house does not seem that there is this big rush to nuclear power as would have you think. Only the so-called emerging states are launching energy plans in this sense, almost like a billboard to make clear lo sviluppo economico che stanno vivendo (o per l’utilizzo del nucleare scopo intimidatorio, vedi IRAN).
E questo discorso non sembra nemmeno tanto vero, soprattutto per certi stati come Korea e Cina. In queste nazioni è stato avviato un piano energetico che non prevede lo sfruttamento del nucleare, ma di energie e di sistemi alternativi, sfruttando programmi di ricerca e sviluppo. Pensandoci bene la cosa è molto furba, dato che verrà un momento in cui (volenti o nolenti) bisognerà confrontarsi con sistemi alternativi ed ecosostenibili: se una nazione si prende per tempo, non ha che da guadagnarci.
Nemmeno gli Stati Uniti, grandi consumatori di energia, hanno pianificato nuove centrali: l’ultima è stata costruita nel 1979, 30 anni fa!! Pura avendo a disposizione nuove tecnologie, hanno optato per nuove forme di sfruttamento.
Voglio dire, se non conviene a loro perché a noi dovrebbe?
Ma in quanto italiano la mia paura è un’altra: le scorie. Se non riusciamo a gestire la semplice immondizia, come possiamo pretendere di saper gestire le scorie?
