03/12/2012
Up to now I think you have
understood what’s my position about nuclear energy. I think that
using nuclear energy is just delaying the problem because of the
limited uranium resource and the issue of nuclear waste. But in a
debate we have to give voice also to the counterpart. So here you are
a few reason to be pro nuclear energy!
We are living in a world
that is facing climate change and is now half urban. People in
development countries are moving towards cities. And what people are
looking for in cities, besides jobs, is electricity. Who are
pro-nuclear say that the source of electricity that are capable to
provide constant, clean and scalable energy are just coal and gas,
hydro-electric and nuclear. They say that solar energy, wind energy
and the other renewable energy are not constant because they depend
on unpredictable natural force.
Thinking of waste if all
the electricity we use in our lifetime is made from nuclear energy,
the waste produced can be contained in a Coke can and can be storage
in a secure warehouse. Electricity made from coal and gas produce
vast quantities of carbon dioxide that go directly into the
atmosphere.
Furthermore renewable
energy takes a very large footprint on the land, in terms of
materials and in terms of land occupied. Typically to produce 1
gigawatt of electricity, 250 square miles of wind farm are required.
Who is pro-nuclear also
say that nuclear energy is a great disarmament tool. For example ten
percent of American electricity comes from decommissioned warheads.
In this post we saw some
reasons to be pro nuclear. In the next one I will try to convince you
that nuclear energy are not so great as someone say.
In these posts I would like to talk to you about everything that concern with nuclear power.
RispondiEliminaFirst of all I would like to explain how nuclear power is made. Essentially there is a piece of uranium hit by a free neutron. The free neutron collides with the nucleus of a Uranium atom; the nucleus splits (fission) into two smaller atoms, releasing a high amount of energy, plus one free neutron that cause another fission (a chain reaction). And you would say: “Perfect! An easy and cheap way to create energy without damage to the environment!” Are you sure?
Have you considered that the wastes from the fission remain toxic for several centuries and that there isn’t a safe way to store it? In addiction also the process of nuclear power production could be very dangerous for the environment but also for man.
We all remember the Fukushima disaster. And not long time ago, the Cernobyl disaster, where people, nearly 20 years later, are still fighting with devastation, poverty and diseases like cancer.
Another way to produce environmental-friendly energy is possible. We all know that clean energy could be done with wind farm and solar panels. But there are a lot of other way to create green energy like using the energy released by waves or by high tides and so on... Even the energy we create walking on the street can be collected!
And yet a lot of countries like UK, US, Russia, Japan, India and China are considering to develop their nuclear stations.
For example recently the UK parliament has approved to pay at around £100 per MWh of electricity generated by nuclear power while onshore wind is likely to get no more than £80 per MWh of electricity generated. This politic is against the public opinion that prefer clean energy and the government justify their action saying that new nuclear stations are safer than the older. This seems a very weak justification. It seems more realistic that the decision was made to satisfy the anti-windfarm Tories.
Untill politics doesn’t understand the importance of investing in a clean and safe way to produce energy we will never be free from the fear of another nuclear disaster.
http://www.guardian.co.uk
http://news.bbc.co.uk
Today I want to write a posts about the International Atomic Energy Agency that if the watchdog of the United Nations in everything that concerns nuclear issues.
RispondiEliminaThe IAEA has been created in 1957 by US President Dwight D Eisenhower to promote the development of technology along peaceful lines. After the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US, the IAEA had a key role in the coalition against terrorism. The February 2010 published the critical report on Iran, which bring the UN Security Council to vote in favour of intensifying sanctions against the country.
The International Atomic Energy Agency has an important role in the inspection the nuclear countries. The IAEA promotes the peaceful use of the atomic Energy while trying to make sure that the technology is not used for military purposes.
The IAEA has to face a lot of problems and issues and unluckily has just to rely on the willingness of countries to cooperate.
The actual issues and challenges of the IAEA are in North Korea, Israel, Iran and in Pakistan.
In North Korea the problem became apparent in 2002, when North Korea expelled IAEA inspectors, making impossible for the IAEA monitoring the nuclear activity of Pyongyang.
Israel , which has nuclear weapons, has never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and is a not subject of the IAEA inspections or sanctions.
Iran meanwhile has developed nuclear programs even if the IAEA asked to suspend its nuclear activities.
Pakistan accused the IAEA of restriction in transfers of nuclear know-how to developing countries, stopping their social and economic development.
The important role the IAEA has been seen also after the disaster of Fukushima, when it was called by the Japanese government. Experts of the agency had a key role in assessing the nuclear plants consistent with safety standards.
In my opinion the IAEA is very important, because is like a nuclear watchdog who monitors the standards of the nuclear power station of the countries that signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. And this is an advantage but also a great handicap because it can’t monitor the countries that didn’t sign the treaty and this nations are also the most dangerous nations for the West countries.
Enjoy
It’s a recent news that UK is going to emanate the Energy Bill.
RispondiEliminaBasically the purpose of the government is to make profitable for companies to build new, different and more efficient sources of electricity.
This purpose is achieved granting a fair price for selling energy, to that companies who plan to build new clean and efficient electricity source such as nuclear plant and wind farms. Also, there will be some sort of compensation for those companies that build gas-powered electricity generators to cover temporary shortfall in generating capacity due to lack of wind.
The aim of the plan is, first of all, to grant a secure and affordable energy supply. An energy supply different from oil, could be essential in the future because of the growing tension in the middle east area, the main seller of oil in the world. Furthermore, according to Kyoto’s protocol and to European laws on dirty power stations, UK will have to cut his greenhouse gas emission by 50% in the next 13 years. The Energy Bill provides a planning of the long term investments to achieve these goals.
What’s really stuns about the plan is that the investments are paid by companies. And you would say that companies will increase the consumer’s bills. No they will not! The government will raise funds from energy companies. These politics will increase energy bills of consumers of £95 a year but the savings from improved efficiency will reduce bills by £94 a year. Just a pound a year per consumer to benefit of a new clean way to produce electricity.
In addition a system that rely on sources of energy different from gas will protect consumers from a growth in price of gas.
I don’t know if these is a good politics, but at least, UK has done a definite choice: invest in nuclear and renewable energy. Italy also has signed the Kyoto’s protocol but no choice has been taken at all. Italy need to take a choice. Now.