El terremoto sufrido en Japón y el posterior tsunami no sólo han abierto la tierra y el mar, llevándose dolorosamente a miles de almas, también han abierto nuevamente el debate nuclear a nivel mundial. Yo no soy una experta nuclear, quede claro el punto, ni tan siquiera soy una de las cientos o miles de periodistas que a diario nos inundan con sus sesudas opiniones, sólo soy una ciudadana que expresa sus opiniones de la misma forma que cualquier otra persona puede hacerlo. Al hablar de energía nuclear hay que tratar 4 puntos que se encuentran totalmente entrelazados: Mentiras. Barata. Limpieza. Seguridad.
Mentiras: Llevamos más de una semana escuchando a expertos hablar y sólo saco en claro que los intereses a proteger son desmesurados. Japón afirma una cosa y al instante es cuestionada desde Francia, Alemania o los Estados Unidos. Si en Francia, país en el que el 75% de la energía consumida proviene de centrales nucleares, se creará un movimiento antinuclear fuerte se vería colapsada. Quizás una media verdad no sea tan dura como una mentira, pero no termina de ser una verdad. Desde Japón dijeron al mundo que no ocurría absolutamente nada y por desgracia hemos asistido a un melodrama en directo. En el momento en que algún experto decía que algo no iba a ocurrir, ocurría, reactor a reactor han tenido problemas y aún hoy siguen sin tener el control de toda la planta. Nos hemos enterado, o nos hemos querido enterar, de que varios empleados de Tepco, la compañía propietaria de la central de Fukushima, ya avisaron de que la central había sufrido problemas que no se hicieron públicos, e incluso un trabajador de General Electric dimitió al creer que el reactor número 1 de Fukushima estaba totalmente trucado.
Barata: El principal argumento a favor de la energía nuclear es lo muy barata que resulta en comparación con las energías alternativas o renovables. No es cierto. Tanto las energías renovables como la nuclear están subvencionadas en España. La diferencia es que las empresas de energías renovables son transparentes y las nucleares no. La energía nuclear no es más que otra parte del inmenso monopolio que es el sector energético en España. Ninguna empresa española sería capaz de construir una central nuclear sin subvenciones, entre otras cosas porque harían falta más de diez años en amortizar su gasto. La energía nuclear no es barata ya que en España, al menos, hay que comprar a dos ex presidentes y colocarlos en la insustancial figura de “consejeros”, resulta aún menos barata cuando ya se empieza a tantear a un más que probable futuro ex presidente. Según UNESA (Unión Nacional de Empresas S.A.) el precio de la electricidad es más barato en España que en Francia o Alemania, a pesar de que en Francia el 75% de la energía es producida por centrales nucleares y a pesar de que Alemania tiene muchas más centrales que en España. El supuesto bajo coste de energía nuclear sólo favorece a las empresas, no a los usuarios. Además hay que añadir el dinero que el gobierno destina anualmente a los ayuntamientos acogidos a los planes de emergencia nuclear, un total de 2’1 millones de euros en 2011. Las empresas que gestionan centrales nucleares ni siquiera piensan en sustituir centrales de más de 30 años, como la de Garoña, si no que, aún corriendo el riesgo de usar centrales antiguas, pretenden amortizarlas a tope.
Limpieza: La energía nuclear no produce CO2, eso es cierto, no altera el medio de vida de ningún animal y tampoco parte en dos a cualquier pájaro que vuele despistado, por desgracia, como hemos visto a raíz de los problemas de Fukushima, se pueden crear nubes tóxicas que son capaces de avanzar más de 8300 kilómetros, la distancia entre Japón y San Francisco, dónde han aparecido las primeras partículas atómicas provenientes de la central de Fukushima. Ante una fuga radioactiva los alimentos deben no consumirse, al igual que en estos momentos ocurre con parte de las cosechas, carne y pescados de Japón (en las zonas afectadas) Si una placa solar tiene un problema no es necesario evacuar a todo ser humano a 200 kilómetros a la redonda. Tampoco podemos olvidar que el tratamiento de residuos está totalmente subvencionado, hasta tal punto que no son las empresas las que se encargan de ellos, de nuevo es el estado el que tiene que pagar a países como Francia para que se encarguen de los residuos.
Seguridad: Al principio del artículo he dicho que no soy una experta en energía nuclear, por el contrario, Yuli Andreyev si lo es. Él fue vicedirector del Spetsatom, el organismo soviético encargado de la lucha contra accidentes nucleares y pasó cinco años en Chernóbil, expresaba lo siguiente sobre seguridad al diario La Vanguardia: “Quienes diseñan centrales nucleares están pendientes de dos cosas: seguridad y coste. El problema es que la seguridad cuesta dinero. Si gastas demasiado en ella la central nuclear no es competitiva”. Quizás eso explique porque en un país con alto riesgo sísmico como Japón tenía una central nuclear a la orilla del océano, el terreno era mucho más barato, también era mucho más barato no enterrar los generadores de energía… Hoy mismo, día 21 de marzo de 2011, se está celebrando el juicio contra el jefe de explotación de la central nuclear de Ascó y contra el inspector residente del consejo de seguridad nuclear por un delito contra la seguridad colectiva por exposición de radiaciones ionizantes debida a una imprudencia grave. La central emitió particular radiactivas en noviembre de 2007 y no se informó hasta abril de 2008, ni siquiera se cancelaron las visitas de colegios a la central. El 23 de junio de 2009 Greenpeace asaltó la central nuclear de Nordenham, Alemania, y el 15 de febrero de 2011 ecologistas de Greenpeace asaltaron la central de Cofrentes y realizaron pintadas en una torre de refrigeración. ¿Y si en vez de ser ecologistas hubieran sido un grupo terrorista? La seguridad falló en ambos casos.
Desde mi punto de vista la energía nuclear no es una opción, creo que si todo el dinero que se emplea para mantenerla con vida se invirtiera en investigación y desarrollo, en nuevas energías y tecnología, nos iría mucho mejor.
De Sonya Back para Think Tank DC*
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta Energía Nuclear y Renovable. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta Energía Nuclear y Renovable. Mostrar todas las entradas
martes, 22 de marzo de 2011
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.
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.
lunes, 14 de marzo de 2011
Renewable energy, nuclear or oil?
In recent weeks, there have been some developments that have reopened two debates that although different, are compatible. On the one hand we have the riots in Libya and the consequent problem of oil supply, reviving the debate on dependency and energy savings, while on the other hand, the recently activated nuclear alert in Japan after the tsunami that devastated northwest the country on Friday 11 March.
In the case of the riots that of Libya and other North African countries, the problem is clear, a strong dependence of the major global powers of the oil-producing countries makes situations like the one we are living in an oil-producing nations, much of the developed world take to shake. That is why many of these countries are launched to take steps to save energy and avoid dependence on third parties. In the case of Spain's famous reduction of the maximum speed on motorways 110 km / h, a measure taken by skepticism by many people.
The energy dependence of developed countries is unclear and therefore should be taken so that this ever is less, whether energy savings or new form of electricity, to which are postulated as favorite large renewable energy but one thing should be clear, this energy is the future, but still not present, it is neither cost effective nor efficient, but ended so, but for that we must be patient and not rush into the road.
Linked to the discussion of energy dependence, is the nuclear energy debate which has taken power after the recent events in Japan. The main question at issue here is the need to commit to renewable energy or energy sources for a more proven but arouse more fear among the population about the consequences of failure in production.
There is no doubt that a central problem in a serious nuclear catastrophe, but is even more true that the incident in Japan is the first in 25 years. In Spain the production of nuclear energy is more than 45% of total Spanish energy production, and although there have been no radiation problems in our country. Nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases and has an extremely low error rate, with rare failures in the production process. Every day is more control over this energy and lower the risk of nuclear catastrophe, in addition, technological developments will make every time, these risks are reduced, with a reasonable energy source fully compatible with renewable energy.
In the case of the riots that of Libya and other North African countries, the problem is clear, a strong dependence of the major global powers of the oil-producing countries makes situations like the one we are living in an oil-producing nations, much of the developed world take to shake. That is why many of these countries are launched to take steps to save energy and avoid dependence on third parties. In the case of Spain's famous reduction of the maximum speed on motorways 110 km / h, a measure taken by skepticism by many people.
The energy dependence of developed countries is unclear and therefore should be taken so that this ever is less, whether energy savings or new form of electricity, to which are postulated as favorite large renewable energy but one thing should be clear, this energy is the future, but still not present, it is neither cost effective nor efficient, but ended so, but for that we must be patient and not rush into the road.
Linked to the discussion of energy dependence, is the nuclear energy debate which has taken power after the recent events in Japan. The main question at issue here is the need to commit to renewable energy or energy sources for a more proven but arouse more fear among the population about the consequences of failure in production.
There is no doubt that a central problem in a serious nuclear catastrophe, but is even more true that the incident in Japan is the first in 25 years. In Spain the production of nuclear energy is more than 45% of total Spanish energy production, and although there have been no radiation problems in our country. Nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases and has an extremely low error rate, with rare failures in the production process. Every day is more control over this energy and lower the risk of nuclear catastrophe, in addition, technological developments will make every time, these risks are reduced, with a reasonable energy source fully compatible with renewable energy.
¿Energías renovables, nucleares o petróleo?
En las últimas semanas, se han sucedido unos acontecimientos que han reabierto dos debates que aunque distintos, son compatibles. Por un lado tenemos las revueltas de Libia y el consiguiente problema de abastecimiento de petróleo, reavivando el debate de la dependencia y el ahorro energético; mientras que, por otro lado, esta la alerta nuclear activada recientemente en Japón tras el tsunami que asolo el noroeste del país el pasado viernes 11 de marzo.
En el caso de las revueltas al de Libia y otros países del norte de África, el problema es claro, una fuerte dependencia de las principales potencias a nivel mundial de los países productores de petróleo que hace que ante situaciones como la que se esta viviendo en una naciones productoras de petróleo, gran parte del mundo desarrollado se eche a temblar. Es por esto que muchos de estos países se lanzan a tomar medidas para ahorrar energía y evitar así la dependencia de terceros. En el caso de España la famosa reducción de la velocidad máxima en autopista a 110 Km./h, medida tomada por escepticismo por mucha gente.
La dependencia energética de los países desarrollados es clara y por tanto se deben tomar medidas para que esta cada vez sea menor, ya sean de ahorro de energía o de nuevas forma de producción eléctrica, ante las cuales se postulan como grandes favoritas las energías renovables, pero una cosa se debe tener clara, esta energía es el futuro, pero aun no es el presente, no es ni rentable ni eficaz, aunque terminara siéndolo, pero para eso hay que tener paciencia y no precipitarse en el camino.
Ligado al debate de la dependencia energética, esta el debate de la energía nuclear el cual a tomado fuerza tras los últimos sucesos de Japón. La principal cuestión que se trata aquí es la necesidad de apostar por las energías renovables o por unas fuentes energéticas más probadas pero que despiertan más temor en la población por las consecuencias de un fallo en la producción.
No hay duda de que un problema en una central nuclear seria catastrófico, pero más cierto es aun que el suceso en Japón es el primero en 25 años. En España la producción de energía nuclear es de más del 45% sobre el total de la producción energética española, y no se han registrado aun problemas de radiación en nuestro país. La energía nuclear no genera gases de efecto invernadero y tiene un porcentaje de error extremadamente bajo, siendo poco frecuentes los fallos en el proceso productivo. Cada día es mas el control sobre esta energía y menor el riesgo a una catástrofe nuclear, además, la evolución de la tecnología, harán que cada vez, estos riesgos se reduzcan, siendo una razonable fuente de energía totalmente compatible con las energías renovables.
En el caso de las revueltas al de Libia y otros países del norte de África, el problema es claro, una fuerte dependencia de las principales potencias a nivel mundial de los países productores de petróleo que hace que ante situaciones como la que se esta viviendo en una naciones productoras de petróleo, gran parte del mundo desarrollado se eche a temblar. Es por esto que muchos de estos países se lanzan a tomar medidas para ahorrar energía y evitar así la dependencia de terceros. En el caso de España la famosa reducción de la velocidad máxima en autopista a 110 Km./h, medida tomada por escepticismo por mucha gente.
La dependencia energética de los países desarrollados es clara y por tanto se deben tomar medidas para que esta cada vez sea menor, ya sean de ahorro de energía o de nuevas forma de producción eléctrica, ante las cuales se postulan como grandes favoritas las energías renovables, pero una cosa se debe tener clara, esta energía es el futuro, pero aun no es el presente, no es ni rentable ni eficaz, aunque terminara siéndolo, pero para eso hay que tener paciencia y no precipitarse en el camino.
Ligado al debate de la dependencia energética, esta el debate de la energía nuclear el cual a tomado fuerza tras los últimos sucesos de Japón. La principal cuestión que se trata aquí es la necesidad de apostar por las energías renovables o por unas fuentes energéticas más probadas pero que despiertan más temor en la población por las consecuencias de un fallo en la producción.
No hay duda de que un problema en una central nuclear seria catastrófico, pero más cierto es aun que el suceso en Japón es el primero en 25 años. En España la producción de energía nuclear es de más del 45% sobre el total de la producción energética española, y no se han registrado aun problemas de radiación en nuestro país. La energía nuclear no genera gases de efecto invernadero y tiene un porcentaje de error extremadamente bajo, siendo poco frecuentes los fallos en el proceso productivo. Cada día es mas el control sobre esta energía y menor el riesgo a una catástrofe nuclear, además, la evolución de la tecnología, harán que cada vez, estos riesgos se reduzcan, siendo una razonable fuente de energía totalmente compatible con las energías renovables.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)