publishing the article by Marcello Cini on the Manifesto (19 / 2), which I think says intelligently Obama's recent decisions on nuclear energy. We have already heard some siren "progressive" (Chicco Testa, the Reformist) advantage - in bad faith - dell'imprimatur U.S. President to clear even the next nuclear power. No doubt about it: the great Renato Carosone, fifty years ago, had just seen ...
IMPOSSIBLE IN ITALY
Marcello Cini
US NUKE - The choice of the wrong of Obama to open two reactors is the U.S. strategy that already has nuclear
entrust the construction of nuclear power station that Berlusconi wants to make a few miles from home to entrepreneurs who have put the sand instead of cement in the student house of Aquila and in the hospital? Entrust the management of contracts to Bertolaso? Would you trust the expertise Impregilo which for years has filled the Campania ecoballe of black bin for an incinerator to burn them unable to? And you would be satisfied if the disposal of waste will occupy Friends of camorra?
are no provocative questions. Only reflect the harsh reality of established facts and official documents. And, then, why does not entrust Floris Pagnoncelli to conduct a survey on the opinion of the Italians with these questions?
a club against us?
This was my first reaction to the news that Obama announced the construction of two nuclear power plants to be implemented over the next seven to eight years breaking a moratorium of three decades in the energy policy of the United States. "For a long time - he said - it was believed that those who fight for the environment to be against nuclear energy but it is a contradiction: nuclear power is our only source of clean energy." There is no doubt that this decision will be used as a club over the heads of our opponents to the nuclear program recently approved by the Italian government. The first obvious reaction is therefore that I described earlier. None the less bitter on account of some other reasons why the Italian context differs substantially from those of the United States. In the light of this difference should be seen the choice of Obama.
A misleading
should first be noted, however, that Obama did not claim, as does the chorus of our nucleophiles, that the cost of nuclear kilowatt-hour will be lower than that of other sources, It is not a serious issue. Without going into details, just note that on the latter, both renewable and nonrenewable, still weighs the cost of a barrel of oil, which has gone in a year one hundred and fifty dollars to fifty, but may also go up if the owners of oil will decide to do so. While it is increasingly difficult and expensive to find new reserves, it is very likely to happen.
The price of oil affects all other either directly or indirectly, as well as its low price has dramatically reduced the investment in renewable energy by impeding the previous downward trend in costs, would boost his rising cost of other sources. Experience shows that in any case, the costs increase dramatically dedicated nuclear reactors during construction. Any comparison
today in favor of nuclear power is therefore misleading. Moreover, Obama's commitment to act for the construction of two new nuclear power stations with public funding means that the market alone is not considered cost effective to invest in this sector.
The choice of Obama is therefore a strategic choice that has the priority to maintain the technological leadership and the hegemonic position of the United States against the emerging globalized world.
more risks and fewer jobs to be done
The second consideration relates to the difference between the nature of nuclear power than solar sources, wind and other forms of saving. The nuclear source (which, remember, is not renewable because uranium is a scarce and insufficient to meet global demand massive) is located in large systems, very expensive and technologically complex, while plant sources are scattered, small and technologically simple, not to mention forms of energy saving, by definition, wherever located. In addition, these facilities do not present a particular risk, while nuclear reactors, even if they are protected by sophisticated security systems and most efficient in normal operating conditions, are potentially vulnerable to unpredictable acts of terrorism or earthquakes.
This different nature have substantially different effects. First of all employment. For the nuclear question, under construction, with a few thousand workers (the two reactors employ three thousand Americans) and during operation a few hundred (850 expected). Even if only a fraction compared to the many thousands of workers made by us on the pavement by vultures who bought the invisible computer companies (formerly Olivetti). The construction, operation and maintenance of power plants 'sweet' may instead require the growth of their distribution in the area and thus lower costs, up hundreds of thousands of skilled workers. It is obvious, moreover, that this growth would be accompanied by an indirect and direct development of the Italian economy, which, as is known, is based mainly on small and medium industries. The abysmal difference
last consideration: the abysmal difference between our country and those who developed the first nuclear weapons. It is not, of course, an original sin. Instead, it is recognized that the development of nuclear reactors is the result of decades of synergy between the military and civilian. This means that a development of this industry can not be invented from scratch. Italy is therefore ordered, if and when it may be necessary to do so, to buy reactors from those who have always made.
This is not true for the equipment industry for the production of renewable energy and energy conservation, we still have time to develop into serious competition with countries that have already embarked on this path, provided that this choice of energy policy is made immediately and with heavy investments in personnel and equipment needed.
conclude with a reminder of the harsh realities of our country, recalling that Article 640 of the Penal Code defines the crime of fraud with these words: "Anyone with artifice or deception causing someone in error, power of attorney to himself and to others an unfair advantage with another loss shall be punished ...». There comes to mind anyone?
0 comments:
Post a Comment