I quote from the Republic:
Just yesterday, 24 February, the U.S. president Barack Obama presented his plan to room together on energy production and indicated that the production will be clean and renewable. Moreover, he announced the share of money that the U.S. State intends to allocate to start now. He added: "Our first goal is to be able to drastically reduce air pollution and the greenhouse effect."
the same day, in Rome, our Prime Minister Berlusconi signed an agreement to implement the system in our country's four nuclear power plants in the third generation, and has absolutely talked about the problems of global warming. We report here that the pollution of the city of Milan for 35 days on the 55 beginning of the year has exceeded the air pollution level, reaching 171 micrograms of particulate matter, compared with 50 of the European limit. But the Italian government and the Municipality of Milan do not make a turn.
Returning to nuclear power, Berlusconi gives us news of the agreement showing off a grin. He added that it was finally "broken the ecological fanaticism of a political party that already twenty years ago, she stopped to finish the construction of two new power plants." Then return to nuclear power? But how, we have struggled so much, 70% of Italians voted in a referendum on the central hand, and he defines mass ecology fanatics? It specifies that nuclear power is a controllable and safe method now. But how safe? Silvio, have you forgotten that not later than last year in France going on a disaster: the plant nuclear largest in the nation, discharge toxic waste that struck ten workers. "But, quiet!" French minister says, "of the workers were affected by the fumes, it is true, but only slightly." What does "slightly"? It means that the damage caused to health of those employees are insignificant: the hair have become a bit 'blue eyes and the skin slightly fluorescent scales. Somebody even the gills, but they are fine.
But I wonder, that our president is ill-informed or trained as a natural? Nobody said that, apart from the constant danger of a disaster like Chernobyl, the nuclear waste problem exists? And that we, in Italy, by the mere fact of having operated a couple of nuclear power fifty years ago, we still waste that we do not know where to turn? The same happens in France, the president said that by 2020 we will be already on the first of four planned stations. But the ruler of glowing brain knows what it costs to mount a nuclear plant? In Finland are building just one of last generation. Predicted that it would cost a billion euro, but halfway through they realized that he had doubled the expected one billion, two billion. Now the makers of the plant, prepared and honest people, they warned that the value of the energy that could produce them with the center will not be able to cover even half of the cost of manufacture and installation. Not only that, but that the loss will increase enormously when, in about twenty years, as a rule, should remove all worry about the plant and pack each item in a huge container of reinforced concrete, and then going to place it in a space carved into the rock to a minimum of ten feet below ground level.
And our president, he always, Silvio Eta Beta, ensure that nuclear energy is cheaper and produces large benefits and was immediately denied by any honest scientist and informed him that mocks: "But you say, Eta? Heed to thyself , the reactors operate only with enriched uranium. Now you must know that in recent years the price of this fuel has increased by seven times, for the simple reason that the reserves are running out, and since the Italian government has learned that Whole meet the needs of the nation should realize, in your area, at least sixty power generation, where are you going to beat? you have missed the detail that to achieve NEED this number at least three decades, spending on science fiction? And then there's the trouble precisely because of the enormous number of plants that every civilized country has plans to build more than fifteen years of non-usable uranium and there will be more then what you do go with the sixty central with the peanuts? O with popcorn?! And then, my brainy, we explain what zone or area you plan to build these plants? Nobody told you that Italy is a country with high incidence of land-based? And from north to south there is the deeper place where it is conceivable to mount a nuclear plant? The only sure Rome would, indeed, the Vatican is just the ideal ... I persist and sign for such a solution.
0 comments:
Post a Comment