Fabrizio Illuminati is a physical and intellectual money. This
his enlightened opinion against nuclear power, I thank them for having posted in a discussion on Facebook:
Trying to move beyond the controversy that inevitably charged emotional connotations as come the news of the disaster Japanese, I would try to summarize the main arguments that I think it inadvisable to invest the nuclear energy for our future.
First, a meaningful comparison is given of the new electric power installed worldwide in 2010. Photovoltaics: 16 GW. Nuclear: 0 GW. As for PV, it is a figure almost double that installed worldwide in 2009 (9 GW). This is clearly an exponential growth. We are still about 1% of installed electric power in the world, but it is clear that the solar revolution has begun. That the U.S. is not leading this revolution, sorry, of course (There are reasons, not beautiful, which mean they can not return). What are the countries like Germany, China, Brazil, and others, is much important.
The buffaloes on problems of localization of PV systems and their extension, they feel that repeat periodically, comment elsewhere. It 'true that there is a national problem, linked to phenomena of cultural backwardness, corruption, crime, administration and boards, but, in fact, this is a typical Italian problem be solved (if desired), and that would affect incomparably more catastrophic in the case of location, construction, and operation of nuclear facilities hypothetical.
Turning to nuclear power, before you even discuss issues relating to risk and the problem of waste management, which also are key, just try to think in terms of sheer energy. Nuclear power interests? E 'energy and economic right for the future? There are strong arguments to answer "no", and explain why in the world, basically, you do not build more nuclear power plants for a long time, other than those of replacement, and even those planned by Obama are to replace those that will be obsolete 10-15 years. I try to develop the reasoning for points.
1) rightly says that oil, coal, and natural gas, which are fossil fuels, are destined to run out in time more or less close to, neutral current rate of consumption. Certainly oil is what is made worse in the sense that the most reliable geological estimates, we are close to the historic peak of production (some say it's already happened or is already happening, others favor a date between 2015 and 2030). Then the inexorable decline in production will proceed at the beginning slowly, then faster and faster. Additional resources will come from the exploitation of oil shale and tar sands (especially Canadian and Venezuelan), wells deep sea (not particularly complex and difficult to access), resource polar (not extraordinary, and even more difficult to access). Even without taking into account the enormous environmental damage that the exploitation of these resources would result in additional (but it is foolish not to), in any case it would be expensive and recoveries that would delay the inevitable for maybe 20-30 years. It 's true, there is still a relatively long coal, and it seems there is still a lot of gas (this is already less clear). But burning coal produces CO_2 levels that oil pales in comparison, most other crap remarkable, as the deadly sulfur dioxide SO_2. Even there, however, you retrieve another 50-100 years, if all goes well.
2) E 'then true and sacrosanct that we must reduce dependence on fossil fuels because A) are indeed non-renewable resources, and B) because they contribute in a decisive and essential to global warming.
3) Proponents of nuclear fission (the fusion is yet to come for ever and probably will) argue that the return to nuclear solves both problems A) and B) in paragraph 2) above. In addition, support C) among all possible alternative sources (solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and all their various possible combinations and supplements, including energy storage systems with batteries, capacitors, hydrogen tanks, air, river basins, etc. etc.), nuclear power is that which provides the lowest cost per kWh of energy produced.
First, a meaningful comparison is given of the new electric power installed worldwide in 2010. Photovoltaics: 16 GW. Nuclear: 0 GW. As for PV, it is a figure almost double that installed worldwide in 2009 (9 GW). This is clearly an exponential growth. We are still about 1% of installed electric power in the world, but it is clear that the solar revolution has begun. That the U.S. is not leading this revolution, sorry, of course (There are reasons, not beautiful, which mean they can not return). What are the countries like Germany, China, Brazil, and others, is much important.
The buffaloes on problems of localization of PV systems and their extension, they feel that repeat periodically, comment elsewhere. It 'true that there is a national problem, linked to phenomena of cultural backwardness, corruption, crime, administration and boards, but, in fact, this is a typical Italian problem be solved (if desired), and that would affect incomparably more catastrophic in the case of location, construction, and operation of nuclear facilities hypothetical.
Turning to nuclear power, before you even discuss issues relating to risk and the problem of waste management, which also are key, just try to think in terms of sheer energy. Nuclear power interests? E 'energy and economic right for the future? There are strong arguments to answer "no", and explain why in the world, basically, you do not build more nuclear power plants for a long time, other than those of replacement, and even those planned by Obama are to replace those that will be obsolete 10-15 years. I try to develop the reasoning for points.
1) rightly says that oil, coal, and natural gas, which are fossil fuels, are destined to run out in time more or less close to, neutral current rate of consumption. Certainly oil is what is made worse in the sense that the most reliable geological estimates, we are close to the historic peak of production (some say it's already happened or is already happening, others favor a date between 2015 and 2030). Then the inexorable decline in production will proceed at the beginning slowly, then faster and faster. Additional resources will come from the exploitation of oil shale and tar sands (especially Canadian and Venezuelan), wells deep sea (not particularly complex and difficult to access), resource polar (not extraordinary, and even more difficult to access). Even without taking into account the enormous environmental damage that the exploitation of these resources would result in additional (but it is foolish not to), in any case it would be expensive and recoveries that would delay the inevitable for maybe 20-30 years. It 's true, there is still a relatively long coal, and it seems there is still a lot of gas (this is already less clear). But burning coal produces CO_2 levels that oil pales in comparison, most other crap remarkable, as the deadly sulfur dioxide SO_2. Even there, however, you retrieve another 50-100 years, if all goes well.
2) E 'then true and sacrosanct that we must reduce dependence on fossil fuels because A) are indeed non-renewable resources, and B) because they contribute in a decisive and essential to global warming.
3) Proponents of nuclear fission (the fusion is yet to come for ever and probably will) argue that the return to nuclear solves both problems A) and B) in paragraph 2) above. In addition, support C) among all possible alternative sources (solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and all their various possible combinations and supplements, including energy storage systems with batteries, capacitors, hydrogen tanks, air, river basins, etc. etc.), nuclear power is that which provides the lowest cost per kWh of energy produced.
4) Unfortunately, point 3) is false, to a disturbingly large and reliable. In fact, current production and consumption of nuclear fuel cycle are entirely based on uranium, which is part and non-renewable fossil ... exactly like oil and coal. In particular, the only isotope found in nature in appreciable quantities that can be subjected to nuclear fission triggered by thermal neutrons, and therefore suitable for use in power plants is uranium 235. To operate a nuclear power plant must therefore "enrich" the uranium found in nature (through the technique of isotope separation) to increase the percentage of uranium 235. A long, expensive, complex (as you know the Iranians). To operate a power plant should enhance the natural mixture (where the 235 is only 0.7%) up to 235 at a concentration of approximately 20%. To build a bomb, you get to about 90%, and the difficulty increases exponentially with increasing concentration (for this, fortunately, is not easy to build a bomb).
5) How much uranium is still in the world? And when you run out, at the current rate of consumption? It 'difficult to answer precisely these questions, we know (and I quote from Wikipedia source IEA) that "To meet the growing demand for many consumer and producer countries have begun to affect the so-called secondary sources of uranium, that the stocks accumulated and deposited in previous decades (including nuclear warheads). As a result the price of uranium on the world market has suffered a strong surge, rising from $ 7 per pound in 2001 to peak of $ 135 per pound in 2007. In 2001 the price of Uranium accounted for 7.5% of total costs for the production of nuclear energy. According to data from the WNA, in January 2010, the cost current of 115 $ / kg accounts for about 40% on fuel costs, which in turn accounts for about C $ 0.71 on the cost of generation of each kWh..
6) Thus, within a decade, the Fuel costs increased from being 5% of total costs to be 40%. In addition, a few months ago (July 2010) The official announcement, reported by the real media, that the cost per kWh solar cross and fell for the first time under that of the nuclear kWh (about $ 15 c), after 10 years of continuous lowering of the steady rise in the first and second. It seems to me that data speak for themselves. In general, we can be reasonably sure that the production of uranium 235 can peak within a few tens of years and then start to decline even faster.
7) The production of CO_2 linked to the nuclear kWh is modest but not negligible. A central operation essentially does not produce CO_2. However things change when taking into account the processes of uranium mining, construction, MAINTENANCE, and disposal of a central processes that are frighteningly energy-intensive and capital-consuming. In addition, processes are in fact continuous, which accompany the operation of a fission power plant during the entire period of its existence (The fuel rods must be periodically recharged, for example). Here too it is difficult to make very precise accounts, but it can be said that these quantities, of course, lower than those produced by oil, coal and gas, but not negligible, and certainly very much higher than those of CO_2 released, for example, in the production of photovoltaic modules and wind turbines.
I completely overlooked the enormous problems in the operating risks, major accidents, decommissioning, disposal and storage of nuclear waste. I only do this, about the "large areas" that PV irreversibly deprive the beauty of the world, that a whole region of Ukraine, the Chernobyl and around Prypiat is completely uninhabitable by humans and animals since 1986, and that half million of people have been displaced forever. Perhaps it would be better sometimes worry about the beams, before railing against the reeds ...
5) How much uranium is still in the world? And when you run out, at the current rate of consumption? It 'difficult to answer precisely these questions, we know (and I quote from Wikipedia source IEA) that "To meet the growing demand for many consumer and producer countries have begun to affect the so-called secondary sources of uranium, that the stocks accumulated and deposited in previous decades (including nuclear warheads). As a result the price of uranium on the world market has suffered a strong surge, rising from $ 7 per pound in 2001 to peak of $ 135 per pound in 2007. In 2001 the price of Uranium accounted for 7.5% of total costs for the production of nuclear energy. According to data from the WNA, in January 2010, the cost current of 115 $ / kg accounts for about 40% on fuel costs, which in turn accounts for about C $ 0.71 on the cost of generation of each kWh..
6) Thus, within a decade, the Fuel costs increased from being 5% of total costs to be 40%. In addition, a few months ago (July 2010) The official announcement, reported by the real media, that the cost per kWh solar cross and fell for the first time under that of the nuclear kWh (about $ 15 c), after 10 years of continuous lowering of the steady rise in the first and second. It seems to me that data speak for themselves. In general, we can be reasonably sure that the production of uranium 235 can peak within a few tens of years and then start to decline even faster.
7) The production of CO_2 linked to the nuclear kWh is modest but not negligible. A central operation essentially does not produce CO_2. However things change when taking into account the processes of uranium mining, construction, MAINTENANCE, and disposal of a central processes that are frighteningly energy-intensive and capital-consuming. In addition, processes are in fact continuous, which accompany the operation of a fission power plant during the entire period of its existence (The fuel rods must be periodically recharged, for example). Here too it is difficult to make very precise accounts, but it can be said that these quantities, of course, lower than those produced by oil, coal and gas, but not negligible, and certainly very much higher than those of CO_2 released, for example, in the production of photovoltaic modules and wind turbines.
I completely overlooked the enormous problems in the operating risks, major accidents, decommissioning, disposal and storage of nuclear waste. I only do this, about the "large areas" that PV irreversibly deprive the beauty of the world, that a whole region of Ukraine, the Chernobyl and around Prypiat is completely uninhabitable by humans and animals since 1986, and that half million of people have been displaced forever. Perhaps it would be better sometimes worry about the beams, before railing against the reeds ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment