10 GOOD REASONS TO OPPOSE THE NUCLEAR 10 GOOD REASONS TO OPPOSE THE NUCLEAR 1) Nuclear and oil - Nuclear power stations only electricity, which is less than one fifth of energy consumption in each country. The choice of nuclear power does not reduce dependence on oil: France produces 78% of electricity from nuclear energy, but we import more oil, and oil consumption per capita the highest in Europe.
2) Fuel - reserves of uranium are limited to current rates of consumption will be exhausted in a few decades, but if new power plants will be built will last less than its availability and the price will increase exponentially. In addition, the uranium market is dominated by a very small lobby, seven companies control 85% of world reserves and four companies supply 95% of enrichment services. In addition, Italy has no uranium and depend completely on others for its supply.
3) Costs - A realistic assessment of the costs of nuclear power must take into account not only the construction work but the entire life cycle with emphasis on the deferred costs due to storage of waste and the decommissioning of which not yet know the precise impact. Given the enormous costs of building nuclear power plants are not a matter for individuals to prevent receiving large subsidies from the state, as confirmed by the recent decision by Obama The construction of the first reactor French new-generation EPR in Finland (Olkiluoto) encountered great problems, which have already caused significant increases in costs and construction time. Despite this, and that there is no practical experience of their operation (the U.S. regulatory body has not even fired), ENEL would order at least 4!
4) Emissions of CO2 - The process of fission fuel in the reactor does not produce CO2 emissions, which are present in all other stages: extraction and processing of uranium, enrichment (l ' plant in Paducah, Ky., uses two coal-fired 1000MW), construction the plant (which requires huge amounts of concrete and steel) up to the stages of storage of nuclear waste and dismantling of the plant. In the extraction phase are associated with higher CO2 emissions: just think that to get 1 kg of uranium from an ore that has a degree of concentration of 0, 1% (world average is 0.15%) should be removed and work 1 tonne of ore. A rigorous calculation leads to the conclusion that the full nuclear cycle means lower emissions compared to today's power generation, but that will increase dramatically when you need to extract the uranium deposits from the poor. There are also concerns that because the 439 reactors in operation cover less than 6% of energy consumption worldwide, even if we build hundreds of new reactors would provide for a minimum contribution to the demolition of CO2, compared with investments of trillions in the few years that required the reduction of CO2, obviously incompatible with the global financial situation.
5) Health and safety - They accumulate scientific studies that show increases in childhood leukemia and other diseases in populations living around nuclear power plants. This clearly shows that radioactive discharges occur in the normal operation of the reactors, although officially they are hushed up. These are in addition to the frequent releases unavoidable accidents (often minimized or denied by the authorities), the sum other pollutants, and seriously damaging the health of the population: the tumors are growing, even the World Health Organization reports a worrying increase in the spread of cancer worldwide.
The third-generation reactors such as the EPR are proposed as a much safer, but security problems are emerging disturbing, officially reported October 22, 2009 by three European security agencies, which have required changes to the judging of the reactor control system inadequate to deal with an emergency situation. The Finnish Safety Authority has found discrepancies in the construction of 2,100 clearly EPR reactor at Olkiluoto and blocked i lavori.
6) Le scorie radioattive – Comprendono il combustibile esaurito e tutto ciò che è stato contaminato dalle radiazioni, cioè i materiali utilizzati per il funzionamento della centrale ed il reattore stesso, che a fine ciclo andrà smantellato.
Nessun paese ha ancora trovato una soluzione sicura al problema delle scorie, che devono essere custodite per tempi che possono raggiungere le centinaia di migliaia di anni. Si sono sviluppati invece traffici illegali per lo smaltimento nei paesi del terzo mondo, con un criminale risparmio sui costi e conseguenze sanitarie ed ambientali facilmente prevedibili.
I pur limitati programmi nucleari dell’Italia hanno lasciato inheritance in four power plants to be decommissioned, large quantities of radioactive waste drums, temporarily located within the central or sent abroad, with significant expenditure on housing and rents.
This remains an ongoing risk to the environment and health. In the general interest would be logical to address these problems, first consider the construction of new plants.
7) Nuclear civil and military - Nuclear technology is inherently dual-use: it is not possible to separate the civilian and military applications. All countries that have made the bomb passed through the construction of nuclear reactors. France has a powerful nuclear arsenal, which has absorbed the cost of civilian programs. The spread of nuclear programs in the world will undoubtedly increase the risk of proliferation military.
8) Italy needs nuclear power plants? - not true that Italy is forced to import electricity from France: the electric power installed in Italy in 2008 was 98,625 MW against a peak demand of 55,292 (all-time high was reached in 2007 with 56,822 MW), giving rise to greater excess among all European countries. But our electricity system has become increasingly inefficient with privatizations, and certainly would not be improved by investments in nuclear power stations. France "selling" electricity during the hours of falling demand, because the nuclear system is rigid and does not adapt to load variations, on the other hand, in times of exceptional demand peaks is forced to import electricity at a high price from neighboring countries.
9) reduce dependence on oil? - Energy dependence Italian has many other causes. We import almost all the oil that is used with great waste, in applications where they can not be replaced by nuclear power: about one third, for a totally unbalanced transport system on road transport e privato, buona parte per il riscaldamento di edifici costruiti senza isolamento termico, e altre importanti quote per attività produttive energivore, che producono male e in modo inefficiente.
10) Trasparenza, efficienza, democrazia nei lavori - La costruzione di centrali nucleari muove quantità enormi di capitali, in gran parte pubblici, ed un loro corretto utilizzo prevedrebbe l’esistenza di un sistema economico e politico di gestione degli stessi assolutamente trasparente.
Sappiamo bene che così non è e quanto sia frequente che intermediari senza scrupoli, (quando non addirittura la criminalità organizzata), si inseriscano nell’attribuzione degli appalti in maniera illecita. Infine, con l’entrata in vigore della Legge Sviluppo (luglio 2009), lo Stato potrà avvalersi dei poteri sostitutivi nei confronti delle Regioni in materia di energia (aspetto per cui molte Regioni hanno fatto ricorso), equiparando di fatto i siti scelti per le centrali alle aree militari d’interesse strategico. Con grave detrimento dei principi di partecipazione democratica nella condivisione delle localizzazioni.
COORDINAMENTO TOSCANO per il NO al NUCLEARE: Ambiente e Lavoro Toscana
Amici della Terra - Toscana ONLUS
ARCI Toscana
Cittadinanzattiva Toscana
Fare Verde
Forum Ambientalista
Greenpeace
Italia Nostra Toscana
International Society of Doctors for the Environment
Legambiente Toscana
Libera Toscana
Medicina Democratica
Mondo Senza Guerre e Senza Violenze
Rete dei Comitati per la Difesa del Territorio
Terra !
WWF Toscana
