The prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) discussed the future of nuclear energy in 2003. The fundamental conclusion of this analysis was that the future of nuclear power plants had four critical issues: the high price, insecurity, centuries-old radioactive waste and proliferation. Finally, we felt it was necessary to the permanent abandonment of nuclear energy because they thought captious to raise a small core network to reduce emissions.
Pronuclear experts argue that nuclear energy is a clean option, cheap and safe way to meet increasing energy demand without suffering an increase in fossil fuel prices. They also believe that reducing emissions to the atmosphere and could achieve energy independence. This controversial view is defended, among others, José María Aznar and Felipe González.
Secure Energy? Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukusima are now presented as exceptions. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency has received more than eight hundred reports of significant incidents. It's clear that there is a problem, nuclear technology is inherently unsafe because it will always be vulnerable to human error, natural disasters, design errors or terrorist attacks. The consequences of exposure to radioactivity can be death, genetic mutations, birth defects, cancer, leukemia or disorders in various systems.
Clean and cheap energy? Nuclear power plants produce radioactive waste that remains dangerous for hundreds of years and it is governments, with public money, who are managed. The UK government has estimated it would need 125,000 million euros to dismantle obsolete nuclear plants and keep the waste for 125 years. Plants aren't liable in case of accident. The spending on health care in Ukraine, to mitigate the effects of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, reachs 55,000 million euros.
There are alternatives to unsustainable and predator current energy model. And it's possible without the danger of nuclear power plants. According to the "Renewables 2050. A report on the potential of renewable energy sources in Peninsular Spain, "published by Greenpeace, it shows us we would live without nuclear energy or fossil fuels,only renewables energies by the year 2050. It's possible if there is truly political commitment to develop the potential roof and renewable energy generation such as hydroelectric energy, bio-mass, onshore and offshore wind. Also, solar photovoltaic power, tidal energy, dry rock geothermal, solar thermal and solar chimneys. Thus, a better world is possible and necessary.
Eloi Pomar Timoner. Historian of economics.
Comentaris
Publica un comentari a l'entrada