The third way 
(At the official presentation of the circulation area of \u200b\u200bthe Movement for Degrowth Felice will be held Tuesday, November 3 at 18.00 at the conference room of the library of Albino Campobasso conference entitled: Nuclear?! The reasons of decrease Felice.
Among the interventions stand that of Archbishop Giancarlo Maria Bregantini and national president of the movement Maurizio Pallante.)
Nuclear energy is the future! The new generation plants are safe! Uranium does not pollute! Solve the energy problems Italians! These are some of the many raving reviews that can be heard in any bar or bus, but it should not be difficult to attribute them to some politician.
In fact, after the now famous return to nuclear, October 5 during a meeting in the town of Flamanville, in France, ' ENEL, EDF, together with ( Électricité de France) , ha dichiarato che il programma per la costruzione dei reattori in Italia è già stato stabilito a grandi linee. Come molti sanno, dovranno essere realizzati inizialmente 4 reattori di “terza generazione” in zone non ancora definite in quanto le valutazioni sono complesse, ma la certezza è la necessità di avere nelle vicinanze sorgenti d’acqua per il raffreddamento e una rete elettrica in grado di sopportare elevati carichi. La situazione è preoccupante dato che tutto questo viene portato avanti, orgogliosamente , da una classe dirigente che così facendo mostra tutti i suoi limiti in campo energetico. Gli “illuminati” affermano che il futuro Economic and industry of our country are related to nuclear energy, as this will satisfy the energy needs of Italian. Among some citizens, as on any other subject matter, blindly trust . Others, annoyed, expressed its disagreement by proposing the development of renewable energy.
The situation is very different from when in 1972 the book The Limits to Growth it highlighted the possibility that fossil fuels were not able to meet world demand and the long denounced the escalation of 'pollution pollution caused by combustion processes. So to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels is outlined two positions: the proponents of 'nuclear energy on one side and the other those who supported the' solar . The two positions are faced to sound of criticism: the nuclear technology was considered very dangerous and the risk of accidents with leakage and diffusion of radioactive substances were very high, they can not deny these problems, proponents of nuclear power, argued that the development technology could have also solves the solar energy could not be considered an alternative to fossil fuels because its contribution was little more than symbolic.
Similarly in these days we are witnessing a debate that confronts the media like to meet national energy needs, ideas to invest in nuclear power with those who prefer invest in renewable energy. Today, as then the logic is the same. Whether it is dependent on nuclear or solar always responds to the logic of growth. The increase in energy consumption is treated as an unchangeable given and want to satisfy with different sources. Bearing in mind that more than half of all energy that is extracted, is conveyed, transforming, transporting and finally in the new form is used is wasted not be considered scempio a prescindere da quale fonte viene utilizzata per la produzione?
Come ci spiega Maurizio Pallante, se il nostro sistema energetico è rappresentato da un secchio bucato la nostra preoccupazione non deve essere su quale fonte utilizziamo per riempirlo, ma dobbiamo impegnarci a tappare i buchi! Bisogna quindi fare un discorso a monte, cioè ridurre al minimo il consumo di fonti fossili mediante una riduzione della domanda di energia che risponde alla logica della decrescita , la terza via. Nel riscaldamento degli ambienti, oltre agli sprechi causati dalla scarsa efficienza delle caldaie, almeno la metà del calore prodotto is dispersed in the atmosphere because of the bad insulation of buildings. If you reduce this waste and inefficiency these result in lower consumption of fossil fuels much greater than would replacing them with other sources. It 'a better kWh kilowatt-hour saved a replaced (and wasted). We can see that reducing the waste of energy, ie a decrease of production and consumption of goods that is not good, would result in a decrease of GDP . We would so the same services without any waiver or limitation, but with less energy consumption at source. This is not to equate nuclear power and renewable energy, first of all this reinforces even more the futility of a source is not secure. Renewable energy sources instead become fundamental importance only after dealing with this important step on the waste. In Italy renewables make a contribution even laughable, but not in Germany where he was instead made a double strategy: a waste reduction, 2 replacement sources. They are able to meet with renewable energy needs very high compared to ours, also reducing CO2 emissions.
"The strategy of decrease an integrated approach is seen as the first element in the reduction of consumption. If decrease consumption renewables can contribute a higher percentage, and you also save money that you can invest in renewable energy. The decrease in consumption is therefore the fundamental premise for a significant development of renewable sources, both from the point of view of energy needs that from a financial point of view. "It is obvious that the fears themselves are not sufficient . Only through an approach that includes upstream waste minimization we can say the total uselessness of nuclear power. Meanwhile
We offer some suggestions to refute any statement of our politicians about the nuclear utility ..
.
.
.
MOST POPULAR PLACES COMMON NUCLEAR ENERGY
EASY TO DEBUNKING
THE NUCLEAR AND 'A SOURCE OF RENEWABLE ENERGY? The
Nuclear is not a renewable energy source because it is based on using a fuel, uranium, which exists in nature in finite quantities.
that nuclear power is a renewable source also told the European Union, in particular Ferran Tarradellas spokesman Commissioner Andris Piebalgs :
"Nuclear energy is not considered a source renewable, and is not calculated into the mix of sources with which each country must achieve the targets agreed upon "(Lucia Venturi, greenreport )
< consider the annual increase di potenza degli impianti eolici, solari e nucleari constatiamo come negli ultimi anni la potenza nucleare si sia sostanzialmente stabilizzata , mentre le rinnovabili presentano tassi di crescita elevatissimi . Considerando le tendenze dei prossimi anni si evidenzia come, in valori assoluti, vento e sole supereranno la nuova potenza nucleare installata. Questo calcolo, tra l’altro, non prende in considerazione la potenza nucleare obsoleta progressivamente abbandonata. Più in generale, nel periodo 2008-12 la produzione addizionale di elettricità solare ed eolica, e quindi il contributo alla riduzione delle emissioni di gas climalteranti of these green technologies, should be at least 4 times higher than the net contribution of nuclear power (ie also considering the closure of old plants). (Gianni Silvestrini , QualEnergia )
THE NEW GENERATION OF NUCLEAR AND 'SAFE?
The intrinsic safety does not even exist in the so-called new generation of nuclear power is concentrated on the search for Generation IV, which also participates in Italy through Euratom.
"Intrinsic safety does not mean higher levels and control points in a reactor, but to develop reactors that power down automaticamente nel momento in cui si arriva al cosiddetto incidente tipico di riferimento, quando si raggiungono cioè condizioni di perdita del liquido refrigerante . Per ottenere questo è necessario cambiare la fisica di reattori e per farlo serve ricerca. Non mi risulta che all’interno del consorzio Generation IV esistano significative prestazioni di ricerca sulla sicurezza intrinseca». (Massimo Scalia , greenreport )
< > (Massimo Scalia , Gianni Mattioli L’Unità 27marzo 2008)
IL NUCLEARE AIUTA A RIDURRE IL SURRISCALDAMENTO THE PLANET?
< Considering that the average lifetime of operation of the 117 units already closed is about 22 years to double that already seems optimistic, but we have taken to reach 40 years of life expectancy for reactors operating or under construction and we calculated how many plants per year will be closed. This evaluation allows to assess the number of stations to be activated over the next decades to keep the same number of operating stations. In addition to the units currently under construction and with a given set of power, 70 reactors (40,000 MW ) must be designed, built and launched by 2015 - one every month and a half – inoltre serviranno ulteriori 192 unità (168.000 MW ) nei prossimi dieci anni successivi – una ogni 18 giorni. Questo risultato non è diverso dall’analisi del 2004». (da: Lo stato dell’industria nucleare mondiale nel 2007 scritto da Mycle Schneider )
< > dal IV Rapporto Ipcc del 2007. Questo significa che se anche il nucleare non produce emissioni climalteranti , agli attuali tempi di realizzazione non sarà sufficiente a fermare la febbre del pianeta.
IL NUCLEARE E’ ECONOMICO RISPETTO ALLE ALTRE FONTI?
«Il Nuclear power is out of business, so no one invests in the U.S. "(Gianni Silvestrini , greenreport )
< Reuters about the only new reactor by 1600 MW, under construction in Europe, namely in Finland ( Olkiluoto). Its commissioning was guaranteed by the two construction companies, France's Areva and Germany's Siemens for 2009, but especially that of the Finnish Government would guarantee the plant to the Finnish electricity at low cost. The news agency that the note gives us is that in 2009 will not start anything, because commissioning has been delayed to 2011 kWh and above that che questa centrale produrrà costeranno molto cari visto che il costo della centrale è lievitato in pochi anni dai due ai tre miliardi di euro, più o meno quattro volte il costo di una centrale a gas metano a ciclo combinato di pari potenza.>> (Massimo Serafini, greenreport )
«Nessuno potrebbe costruire impianti nucleari in assenza di garanzie sui prestiti e senza quegli incentivi i nuovi impianti forse non sarebbero sulla rampa di lancio», dichiara Christopher Crane , presidente della Exelon , una delle principali imprese elettriche Usa, riferendosi ai forti incentivi previsti dal Bill Energy Act of Bush in 2005. According to data from
Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the report "The Future of nuclear power " published in 2003 the cost of kilowatt-hours produced coal and gas, respectively, are of 4.2 cents and 4.1 cents, while the nuclear kilowatt-hour (of a plant can operate for forty 'years) well costs 6.7 cents.
<> (Leonardo Maugeri in: With all the energy possible)
Nuclear power is' clean?
Certainly in terms of emissions, nuclear power is cleaner than a coal, oil or gas fuel: as much as a windmill or solar panel . It is less certain in the case also with microincidenti leaking radioactivity (no need to get cases like Chernobyl ): <> (Stefano in General Do you remember Chernobyl?)
But in addition to security , another major problem that remains unresolved Atomic Energy waste: there are no concrete solutions to today problem of disposing of radioactive waste arising from plant or from their decomissioning . The approximately 250 thousand tons of highly radioactive waste produced to date in the world are all waiting to be conferred in disposal sites, stored in warehouses "temporary" or left in the same facilities where they were generated. The same is true of course for our country that has a second inventory edited by apathy about 25 thousand m3 of waste, 250 tons of spent fuel - 99% of the radioactivity in our country - which must be added to the approximately 1,500 m3 of waste produced annually in research, medicine and industry and the approximately 80-90 thousand m3 waste deriving from the dismantling of the 4 plants and fuel cycle facilities. (The unresolved problems of nuclear energy twenty years after the referendum, Legambiente 2007)
In the EU-25 nuclear wastes are growing at a rate of 40 thousand cubic meters per year amounted to 100 thousand tons, as if it were a building-based 850 square meters and 10 floors high, and increases of 1 year plan: a giant mole that has only two seats available across Europe for reprocessing, or La Hague in France and Sellafield in England. (Leonardo Maugeri, with all the energy possible)
AND THE NUCLEAR 'AND WILL BE WIDESPREAD' THE NEXT ENERGY SOURCE OF THE FUTURE IN THE WORLD?
"At the end of 2007 are 439 operating reactors in the world, 5 in less than five years ago. There are 34 units "under construction" according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), 20 in less than in the late 90s. In 1989, 177 reactors were operating in what are now the 27 EU member states but this number is reduced to 146 units at the end of 2007.
Currently, the 439 operating reactors comprising at around 371,700 megawatts, and the combined capacity of 436 units in the world in 2000 was less than 352,000 MW - in contrast with the prediction from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in the '70s estimated that 4,450,000 megawatt. Today
nuclear plants generate electricity 16%, 6% of commercial primary energy and 2-3% of world final - with a downward trend - just less than hydroelectric. Twenty-one of 31 states to have nuclear power plants have reduced their share of nuclear power in the energy mix in 2006 compared to 2003.
"Even if Finland and France build a reactor each - the report says (World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2007, greenreport) - China other 20 units
and Japan, Korea and Eastern Europe to add some other station, the global trend of nuclear power will probably be down for the next two or three decades>>
WITH THE NEW GENERATION OF NUCLEAR NON THERE WILL BE MORE 'PROBLEMS IN THE SUPPLY OF URANIUM?
<> (Massimo Scalia, Gianni Mattioli Unit)
According to other estimates, at current rates of consumption, its availability is estimated for about 70 years, but if the demand grew, we could propose such a situation similar to that of "oil wars" and the schedule of implementation plants. And the fast-breeder reactors, the type Superfhenix, not only did not give more concrete results at the time, but could represent serious dangers for the use the military for their ability to produce plutonium so as to make it usable in a subsequent energy conversion, but also in a possible bomb.
In the current world is running right now, with current technology to use nuclear energy, the strong likelihood that there may be countries that want to escape the scrutiny of the international community - as in the case of Iran - which could be used civilian nuclear energy as a pick to acquire nuclear weapons.
A VENT’ANNI DAL REFERENDUM CHE L’HA BANDITO GLI ITALIANI HANNO CAMBIATO IDEA?
< > (Fabrizio Vigni, greenreport)
Grazie al referendum del 1987, l’Italia è stato il primo paese tra i più industrializzati ad uscire dal nucleare. Solo alla fine degli anni ’90, infatti, verrà seguita dalla Germania con la definizione dell’ exit strategy dalla produzione di energia elettrica dall’atomo entro il 2020, e più recentemente dalla Spagna. Siamo proprio sicuri che vi siano popolazioni e territori disponibili ad ospitare una centrale atomica? E voi sareste disponibili?
