While the nuclear debate seems Old. and has been the most ideological, I declare myself completely at odds with the generation of nuclear power in the terms that are currently being developed, ie no technological possibilities to ensure no risk to human health. Although it took several decades to generate atomic energy, that risk is far from controlled. The nuclear debate is old, but today many countries are considering the option of stopping their nuclear program, noting uncontrollable risks are made visible in Japan. Moreover, the European Union has called an extraordinary summit.
They do not deny that these rainfall seem fascia. For now, Germany (the country's leading "green consciousness") takes an unprecedented decision with unusual speed, and 7 nuclear plants temporarily closed, assuming the policy expires prolonging the life of plants. This decision, most observers interpret only key national election, has had an impact on the markets for oil and gas, increasing their contributions. Italy provided for the reintroduction of nuclear power, but today has become such a scenario unlikely. Austria requires a rule to submit to tests for resistance to all European hub. Even in Spain there has been talk of strengthening the security of existing plants.
All this sounds like scaremongering and justification to get away as soon as possible, politically free. The believe if they keep their address and offer credible alternative. I'm delusional or not. Basically
may underlie the opportunity to create optimal conditions for Europe to lead the energy revolution. Also in more remote places, not only geographically, as a precautionary freezes nuclear progress, see the last-minute decision taken by China. It remains to be interpreting these gestures.
Obviously it is causing a shift in the perception of nuclear energy, which is likely to have political and economic consequences. Be so, even the most cautious. Have to make decisions about betting or abandon nuclear power generation, knowing that natural disasters or even a terrorist attack could have serious and unpredictable consequences. That
plants are unsafe evidenced by two simple facts, first security perimeters are maintained in their design and construction, while increasing the cost of transport, secondly, the problem of waste management, without forgetting the small intermittent leaks that occur without reaching beyond public opinion, despite the harmful radiation to humans. I find it suspiciously striking cloak, when monitored with pinpoint accuracy the limits of CO2 in the cities. When will data transparent radiation on levels of chemicals in our territory?
addition, the disaster Japanese seasoned with contradictory news, delves into the wound that nuclear energy is not fully controllable, even with the highest safety standards (which you would expect from Japan). Technicians and experts say the cooling systems under the protocols do not guarantee to prevent radiation leaks.
not surprising that the great wave of media focus on the possibility of a disaster, undermining the great risk of nuclear, which is just waste management. Nuclear wastes that continue to haunt without knowing its destination almost sixty years after the launch the first reactor. The half-life of nuclear waste, such as actinides, is thousands of years. The amazing thing is that we have no permanent storage for the waste, but the time we (ATC), apparently indefinitely. I was shocked
provided that the atomic energy advocates so often resort to the term "clean energy", while still not resolved what to do with radioactive waste. The fact is that Europe has nuclear dependence. France has 58 plants and today over 80% of its power comes of nuclear weapons. In defense of our northern neighbor should be noted that, according to international studies, is the country that best solved and the problem of controlled nuclear safety. But to what extent the policy of a country is affected by their environment? In Europe the debate is almost aggressive. In the world there are 442 operating reactors, and new plants are planned in Russia and India. Even the U.S. is planning to open a reactor in 2017, although the cost of construction of power plants has increased dramatically over the past sixty years. It seems that Americans are no strangers to the difficulties of nuclear development.
And is that the costs reported here align themselves consequences of the financial crisis, the state agency, and now lack of confidence, without underestimating the media frenzy. There is also space for the paradoxes. Leo's monopoly forging steel to build the reactor is held by a Japanese company. Then I read that Moody's warns on U.S. power that their involvement in nuclear plant construction will involve a decline in their rating. That is omnipotent claims rating agencies.
precisely this fact is actually symptomatic of an equation, whereby countries where more nuclear proliferation are precisely those where they are publicly funded, so that the state is the one who ends up subsidizing the huge risk involved in this energy source. No mistake. This is the old statist obsession for energy monopoly, whatever the format.
However, it is clear that if we keep our standards high power consumption, without giving up all those electronic gadgets that brighten our lives, there is no choice but to prioritize the energy revolution, but in no case may go through a renaissance nuclear.
Yes, I say good energy revolution. Reinventing if you prefer. The processes of energy production should be renewed, more effective and, thus, governments should opt for a progressive energy change, not to limit short-term energy supply and competitiveness. In the medium term, industry will seek its research potential future energy technologies. It is unacceptable for the authorities involved, from local to international, to regional or national governments are passing the buck to each other, without facing any risk. There's the 2020 Strategy, which proposes a change of mind all in the latest investment in technology.
Even in the field of incentives, the demand for change is high, but with clear objectives, and that descending into the realm of grand rhetoric ecological risk all the effort poured into renewable end in limbo . This moment begins to mark a clear turning point in energy policy, which should go far beyond these false image moves to calm public opinion, even from a heuristic unjustified fear, which by the way is long overdue discovered as useful for policy decisions.
There is a huge incentive for the technological leap in the field energy, overcoming the influence of regulatory bodies or pressure groups on either side. With the variables involved, ranging from the integrity of the planet to supply energy through the dependence on oil, reducing emissions and vulnerability in the energy market prices, no one can escape making decisions, and it is evident that nuclear energy does not provide a suitable response. It is possible that the overwhelming Japanese catastrophe imposes an acceleration of time. The changing political priorities result from a change in mentality, where the man who thought he could control everything, get lessons growing humility and painful lesson.
0 comments:
Post a Comment