The lie of Nuclear Energy

The Japanese earthquake and tsunami have not only opened the land and sea, bringing pain to thousands of souls, have also reopened the nuclear debate worldwide. I am not a nuclear expert, the point is clear, not even I am one of hundreds or thousands of journalists who inundate us daily with their judicious opinions, I'm just a citizen expressing his views like any other person can. When talking about nuclear energy should be treated 4 points that are totally intertwined: Lies. Barata. Clean. Security.

Lies: We have more than a week listening to experts speak and only clear coat to protect the interests are disproportionate. Japan says one thing and is instantly challenged from France, Germany or the United States. If in France, a country where 75% of the energy comes from nuclear power plants, will create a strong anti-nuclear movement would collapse. Perhaps a half-truth is not as hard as a lie, but truth be finished. From Japan told the world that did not happen and unfortunately nothing we have seen a live melodrama. At the time some expert said that something would happen, happened, reactor to reactor had problems and still remain in control of the whole plant. We have learned, or we wanted to find out, that several employees of TEPCO, the company that owns the plant in Fukushima, and warned that the plant had experienced problems which were not made public, and even a General Electric worker resigned to believe that the Fukushima No. 1 reactor was totally rigged.
Cheap: The main argument for nuclear energy is very cheap compared it with alternative or renewable energies. Not true. Both nuclear and renewables are subsidized in Spain. The difference is that companies are transparent renewables and nuclear. Nuclear power is not just another part of the huge monopoly that is the energy sector in Spain. No Spanish company would be able to build a nuclear power without subsidies, among other things because it would take more than ten years to recoup their expenditure. Nuclear power is not cheap as in Spain, at least, have to buy two former presidents to put in the insubstantial figure of "advisors", is even less expensive when you start groping for a more than probable future ex-president . According UNESA (National Union of Companies SA) the price of electricity is cheaper in Spain than in France or Germany, despite the fact that in France 75% of energy is produced by nuclear power plants despite the fact that Germany has many more central Spain. The supposed low cost of nuclear energy only benefits companies, not users. We also have to add the money the government spends annually to the municipalities benefiting from the nuclear plans, a total of 2.1 million euros in 2011. The nuclear power station operators do not even think of replacing plants over 30 years, as the Garona, if not that, even at the risk of using old plants, try to amortize butt.
Clean: Nuclear power produces no CO2, that is true, does not alter the average life of any animal, nor part in two to any bird that flies clueless, unfortunately, as we saw following Fukushima problems can be create toxic clouds that are capable of moving over 8300 miles, the distance between Japan and San Francisco, where they appeared the first atomic particles from the center of Fukushima. Radioactive leak to food should not be consumed, as currently happens with some of the crops, meat and fish in Japan (in the affected areas) If a solar panel has a problem is not necessary to evacuate every human being 200 miles. Nor can we forget that the waste is fully funded, to the extent that it is companies that deal with them again is the state that have to pay to countries such as France to take charge of the waste.
Security: At the beginning of the article I said that I am not an expert on nuclear energy, however, Yuri Andreyev it is. He was deputy director of Spetsatom, the Soviet agency in charge of the fight against nuclear accidents and spent five years at Chernobyl, expressed safety following the newspaper La Vanguardia: "Who designed nuclear power plants are pending on two things: safety and cost. The problem is that security costs money. If you spend too much on nuclear power plant it is not competitive. " Perhaps that explains why in a country with high seismic risk such as Japan had a nuclear power plant on the shores of the ocean, the land was much cheaper, was also much cheaper not to bury the power generators ... Just today, March 21 2011, the trial is being held against the head of the holding of the Asco nuclear power and against the resident inspector of nuclear security council for a crime against the collective security of ionizing radiation exposure due to negligence. The plant emitted radioactive particles in November 2007 and was not reported until April 2008, or even canceled visits to central schools. On June 23, 2009 Greenpeace attacked the nuclear power Nordenham, Germany, and the February 15, 2011 attacked the environmentalists from Greenpeace and conducted Cofrentes central painted in a cooling tower. What if instead of environmentalists have been a terrorist? Security failed in both cases.

From my point of view, nuclear energy is not an option, I think that if all the money spent to keep her alive was invested in research and development, new energy and technology, we would be better.