I have a question: who are we to make of nuclear power?
I state that I am not against a priori: they are aware that plants have a one hundred kilometers from our borders do not protect us from the consequences of the Chernobyl type, and also I like to use the power as and when I feel like it. But I really want to understand: the men around the house (ie: the Altrametà delcielo, dad and brother) explained to me that is the kind of energy with the highest yield, which translated in a nutshell reduce the cost of energy.
mh ...
just remember the geography of the school, but I know for sure that we do not have deposits of uranium, which means that once again, like oil, we buy the raw material elsewhere, then there's the little problem that the central we must build in a safe place, "hydrogeologically" stable and sound ... but our land is' a landslide risk (so at least we have explained the geologists in the aftermath of recent earthquakes ...); and waste, where we put them? we can not even fix the waste of Naples!
but we are so confident that nuclear power costs less?
and then we get now, decades later than in countries that have gone before us: to bridge this gap, it will take a lot of money, and it is said that it will recover the investment: if the petrol, the cost of raw materials affects for less than half because the rest are just too old excise duties and taxes, like the one to finance the campaign of Ethiopia, if it gives me so much, how long we will have to pay for your investment to achieve nuclear?
maybe we could sell the energy produced abroad, but if our neighbors have so much that they sell, what would they do for us?
the last thing that puzzle me, is that we are asked about the opinion: Years ago there was a referendum said no to nuclear power, and now? it does not matter whether we changed their minds than two decades ago?
0 comments:
Post a Comment