A government against the environment (3): the nuclear option of Mario Tozzi
ROME. Instead of choosing the way much of the energy renewables, greater efficiency and saving the government takes the old and landlocked nuclear. As if entering a shop wanted to buy a tube radio and wanted to fill up with fuel enriched in tetraethyl lead. Uranium is a fossil fuel (like oil and coal) and will run in a time not very long (less than half a century), which could be considerably reduced, as can be imagined, it will increase its use. It also produces radioactive wastes that remain potentially hazardous for thousands of years: how do you compare it to the sun or wind? This road will not have any results in the fight against climate change and will only increase the dependence the country from fossil fuels (even nuclear) which, as you should know, we do not have any deposit. Implanting a nuclear power plant today requires about 4 billion euro, and the actual cost per kWh produced in this way can only be calculated when the first rejection of older units will become idle, ie, from over ten thousand years. Moreover, with the climate emergency ports and international agreements that impose obligations and time, a resolution does not seem sensible to rely on reactors that will be made not earlier than ten anni.La search for nuclear energy has already burned 90 % of the expenditure on the one on alternative energy sources to fossil fuels. Not more employees only in terms of energy sources, but also from the technology: This is the result of the Italo-French nuclear announced today. To pay, in every sense, will be the citizens-taxpayers, that the State will support with their money, a choice that will penalize them in terms of energy dependence and technology and not allow our country for decades, to really gear up for the fight against CO2 and climate change. Italy, in essence, also from France will depend on the technological point of view, despite the previous experience of insolvency Superphoenix reactor, closed at the end of manifest inefficiency. The EPR project in Finland already show enormous problems in terms of accomplishment and security. Nuclear power in Italy has huge problems of location, being a highly seismic area, filled with the hydrogeological and even smaller spaces and river dried up for most of the year (a phenomenon that will increase with the intensification of the effects of climate change). Nuclear power provides a very modest contribution to the world's energy needs. There is talk of about 6.5%, but this is already overbuilt. The real contribution of nuclear power is even lower than that of the 'hydropower (according to the IEA in 2006 hydropower production amounted to 3,121 TWh TWh in 2793 against nuclear power). According to Moody's, the construction of new nuclear plants would cost far more than the $ 7,000 a kW installed. Not only that Moody's claims that the cost per kWh for nuclear power will grow at a rate of 7% per annum and this would lead to a doubling of the cost per kWh over the next decade. So the bill will increase the Italians, but without improving the energy security of our country who continue to depend on fossil fuels for transportation, building heating and everything else. Nuclear power, in fact, is required, at great cost to produce electricity but in our country (like most countries) the electrical power is less than a quarter of total energy impiegata.Il case of central Finnish Olkiluoto. This case is becoming a paradigm of dubious economic viability of nuclear investment, due to construction delays, increased costs and inefficient use of public funds. As the first reactor built in the liberalized European energy market, when construction began in 2005 was described as evidence that the nuclear industry can compete in this new market due to technological improvements have occurred. To reduce the risk for the buyer - the Finnish utility TVO - the Franco-German company Areva has signed a turnkey fixed price for the new station, regardless of the amount of final expenditure effective for the manufacturer. In addition, the agreement provides for a fine of 0.2% of the cost for each week of delay on the delivery to the first criticality foreseen within 48 months from the laying of the cornerstone. The favorable conditions under the agreement aimed to demonstrate the competitiveness of the 'deal' with the alternatives on the market. In the first year there were a number of technical problems and delays in construction, then made public by the energy regulator in Finland. After 16 months of work the project had fallen behind no less than 18 months, with an increase in costs estimated at around 700 million euros. It should be added that in 2006 following the advances made Areva ha registrato una perdita di 300 milioni di Euro. Va notato che la Bayerische Landesbank che ha guidato un syndicated loan di 1,95 miliardi di Euro per il progetto - che copre il 60 per cento dei costi - ha applicato tassi estremamente vantaggiosi del 2,6 %. Inoltre le agenzie di credito all´esportazione Coface e SEK hanno garantito operazioni di Areva per 720 milioni di Euro. Ciononostante il progetto potrebbe causare una forte perdita per Areva ed in prospettiva anche per l´utility finlandese. La DG Competition della Commissione Europea ha anche indagato sulle particolari condizioni concesse da queste agenzie ad Areva e sulla possibile violazione dei principi di concorrenza nel mercato europeo. E´ chiaro quindi che il progetto Olkiluoto emerge come un sonoro fallimento showing the apparent inability of the nuclear industry to compete in the liberalized energy market that is Europe today, even if they are projects under construction in prime condition and in very advanced countries from the point of view on economic and regulation sicurezza.E not speaking here of the unresolved problem of nuclear waste and possible accidents.
