They say, rather say: "nuclear power is essential to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and gain a vital energy independence" . Unfortunately
'uranium is no less rare oil, but mostly there is not in Italy . Besides, the proposed technology for the realization of the future is central French, as well as that of the previous was English. E 'therefore nonsense that nuclear is the way to the (sacred) independence national energy.
" The power of others, particularly those collapsed, are the oldest and most insecure of what we will do it. Our will be very safe" . E 'possible, and indeed it is certain that will be safer, since the new plants will be realized in 10/15 years, so at least half a century after the central collapse so far. Still, the realization principle is always that of the atomic bomb : nuclear fission, controlled only by means of graphite rods or-more recently - of metal. The question is: ce 3 or 4 would like the atomic bombs "controlled" to 50/60Km from home?
Although the planned new power stations should have even 4 refrigeration emergency, the risk that each of these functions does not always exist and therefore a disaster is by no means impossible. "You want to bring bad luck?" you say. Then take the trouble of going to see which set of disastrous coincidences and unbelievable negligence led to the Chernobyl disaster and then we talk seriously about what can happen and what not.
Not to mention that - "banal" - the risk of melting Fukushima is due to the lack of electricity to power the 'refrigeration (unbelievable, to our will never happen).
Not to mention the waste then! They represent a problem for countries fully Civil and advanced. Can anyone imagine what could become, in Italy, a country where the ability to manage the waste is in everybody's eyes? A country that has in fact "outsourced" disposal of its garbage and its toxic waste to the various gangs?
And finally, here's the more subtle argument, one that puzzled even the most ardent anti-nuclear: "nuclear power plants, with all their risks, are less harmful to the 'environment than traditional fossil fuel power plants!"
This I confess, has put me in trouble, partly because the 'has taken one of my personal myth, Margherita Hack. And yet, although the use of fossil fuels like coal and oil is changing the climate of the planet and thereby producing damage to the scope of which probably still eludes us, the answer to our thirst for energy can not be the 'use of a fuel, if possible even more harmful and dangerous, but a whole series of actions, choices and behaviors that go in a direction opposite to that which would have us take 's current government.
It starts from a much needed rethinking of our way of life, without some kind of sacrifice, but with a decided change of course. The use of bicycles and public transport must become the norm. For example, SUVs are a factory of cancer, not a way to show manhood. Our approach needs to become aware. We must begin to prioritize what has a low environmental impact. Also for example, the mineral water of the Vulture makes young people, but if taken in Milan, has done 1200 km tonnes of burning tires and petrol el 'effect is to make us die a little younger.
And then, you have to work on our houses. There are millions in Italy. If each energy to produce solar panels or photovoltaic effect, or it spared using geothermal heat pumps with the national energy requirements would be very small. And if each of them would be restructured to achieve an acceptable energy class, the savings would be even more great.
And so, as it reduces the demand for energy, which today seem to invest that money allocated for nuclear power plants, development and deployment of renewable energy and to study alternative energy.
This is reason for the good of all.
Unfortunately, investing in new nuclear power plants, it means thinking on behalf of some major industrial groups.
0 comments:
Post a Comment