Among the challenges that will determine the future of the planet takes a prominent place the supply of energy. is some time ago that the government decided to reintroduce nuclear energy in Italy. This decision, taken in defiance of the Referendum 87 sanctioning the abandonment of this source appear unresolved issues that led to a clear and firm stance on the part of citizens and, moreover, is ignored if not opposed, the true path to follow is that of alternative sources and a more responsible management of 'energy.
do not understand why a country like Germany which have much lower exposure to sunlight compared to that of Italy, is the leading producer of solar energy in Europe. Movement in the South wants to escape from this logic that keeps our country anchored in notions masquerading as anachronistic and technological progress than thirty years old.
For more among sites given by the government stands for the number (well 3) Puglia. no one realizes that Puglia, in addition to already given an environmental (Ilva and include only the central Cerano) our region exports almost all the energy it produces, just 88%
, then you should increase the energy production for export elsewhere.
We do not want to be the intended victims of a new nuclear adventure, we will not be hostage a policy that the public has a barely concealed annoyance.
We want to make us feel and try to jump the fence separating the field from the desert flower of the citizens of the subjects. For this here are some points that show why nuclear power plants are dangerous pollution, and are not convenient.
uranium mining
Nuclear power plants use uranium to operate, whose extraction from mining and enrichment to make fuel for power plants, has a devastating impact on the environment.
As in all mines, the main extraction techniques involve the excavation in the open air or in tunnels. The mineral is extracted by drilling the rock or the explosion of dynamite.
Although workers spend more time in the booths in order to minimize radiation exposure to the radioactive dust pollute the air surrounding the excavation and thus are transported by the winds.
If uranium is too deep tunnels are excavated by subjecting the ore to a time-consuming chemical process that exposes more workers to very high levels of radiation.
mines using the technique of leaching : a sulfuric acid solution is pumped into the ground, destroying the ground water contamination by acid and radiation. Among other things there is to say that the earth is rich in uranium. Even now, which is extracted from existing mines is not sufficient to cover the demand of power plants, is used then the military stocks accumulated during the Cold War.
nuclear waste to nuclear waste is mainly aimed at those materials that, being in or near the reactor are subject to a continuous emission of radiation. From simple bolt to the larger metal components (walls, cabinets, etc.).. At the end of the life cycle of nuclear power plants these objects should be treated like nuclear waste to be managed very carefully because highly radioactive and therefore dangerous. Are defined for simplicity
"nuclear waste", but must make distinctions. Nuclear waste are not all equal. Nuclear waste can be distinguished by the degree of radioactivity to which the duration of decay and their danger:
• High activity (waste of 3rd grade): the high level of radioactivity of this waste implies a long period of decay, over a hundred thousand years. The waste of the 3rd category, in particular, the ash produced by burning uranium and objects close to the reactor (eg, metal panels).
• Media activity (fractions of second degree) • Low activity (fractions of a degree) These categories have a life less radioactive and come mostly from hospitals (eg nuclear medicine).
treatment of nuclear waste
The storage of waste, when not carried out at the same plants (those sites engineering), should occur at sites called "Geology". These sites are located in desert areas and at the moment there is only one in the U.S., in Nevada. These sites have the characteristic of being "final" because the waste is stored in hundreds of feet deep, and then, once settled, can not be more treated.
To give an 'idea of \u200b\u200bthe problem of storing nuclear waste
The following is an interview granted by President Carlo Rubbia, ENEA and Nobel Prize for physics
" With the various methods of nuclear waste are incinerated , chopped, minced, pressed, glazed, and incorporated in waterproof barrels in turn placed in containers of stainless steel, real miniature coffins. This shame of 'nuclear energy is hidden in the depths of groundwater and marine waters. We have no idea of \u200b\u200bwhat might happen with tons of drums of radioactive material that we have already buried and those who expect to be. We get rid of a problem was inherited by future generations, because these will be active nuclear waste for millennia.
Absolute security does not exist even in this last stage of the nuclear cycle. Cemeteries radioactive waste may be infringed by earthquakes, bombings, sabotage. Despite all the technological safeguards thickness and strength of materials in which the waste is sealed fission, radioactivity may, in extreme conditions, released to some extent, especially the drums fell in the seabed. They found traces of plutonium and cesium in the fauna and flora of the seas used as nuclear cemeteries.
Even the underground storage of hundreds of meters deep can be considered completely safe from me. Under the pressure of rocks, thousands of years from now forgotten by the generations to come, the waste could break or be absorbed by a geological change, which transformed the area to dry in the wet, then enter the waters and go away to contaminate ' humans through the food chain. In my opinion these wastes are delayed bombs. The hide, thinking that we will be there to answer for yourself. "
RISK ACCEPTABLE"
Each nuclear power plant emits radiation, is subject to attacks and incidents. These factors are taken into account by the institutions under the term of "acceptable risk". This concept recognizes the fact that the construction company and was put in mind that a number of deaths, cancer and leukemia may be considered the "price tag" to the development of the community. It trades people's health, but also respect for the environment, for an incredible savings.
COSTS OF NUCLEAR
The direct cost of nuclear power appears at first sight among the lowest:
hydroelectric € 0.02 € 0.03 € 0.04
nuclear gas
However, the direct cost of nuclear power is deceptive because it does not include indirect costs that include costs for the construction, operation, decommissioning of nuclear power plant and waste disposal. analyze complex energy system starting from the construction of power plants until the waste management complex, there is a significant increase in social costs and poor social affordability. These are the main handicap:
• A nuclear power plant requires a long period of time to be built (ten years). During this period of time it is estimated that you do not get the so-called opportunity costs, ie loss potential pariah at the rate of lost interest if the funds were deposited in a bank or engaged in other economic activities. • Nuclear power plants produce radioactive waste management of which is a chapter unresolved (see above). The cost for the storage of nuclear waste is enormous: for example, that in the United States will spend over U.S. $ 110miliardi to encapsulate and dispose the waste safely.
addition to high costs, disposal of radioactive waste has become a lucrative business for unscrupulous companies that export waste to poorer countries without the necessary security measures or place them in containers that are thrown into serious marine environmental and health impacts. The problem about where to safely store the increasing amount of highly radioactive waste remains dangerous for centuries and millennia, is unresolved.
• At the end of the life cycle of the nuclear power should be considered the cost of its decommissioning, land reclamation and storage of radioactive waste.
In conclusion, the nuclear has been presented as a vital source to generate electricity at low cost, but in reality its hidden costs (borne by the state through taxes and charges) are very high.
(
