Digressions on Nuclear Nuclear 
I would like to clarify a few points on the nuclear issue and my adversity: - I never claimed that nuclear power is not convenient, it is indeed objectively a good deal from many points of view; First is the way we produce energy at lower cost, almost certainly, according to modern technologies and controls, and absolutely clean during its activity. The waste produced are few in relation to energy and its use may be continued. Nuclear power plants also have powers unattainable by other types of power plants with 3-4 and really you could keep more than half of Italy.
photovoltaics comparison is a pee in the sea for energy and efficiency, and both it and the wind with heavy use and large power plants could also spoil their environment (not to mention that lately you do not know where are all very sti investments in wind that we all be soooooo rewarding to be able to recover the investment in 3 years)
But this is not a question of cost-benefit analysis, however, that I quote:
- in the cost of the 'economic' nuclear energy do not appear either disposal costs of the plant itself, nor the costs thousands of years, even environmental, waste storage that will never be resolved soon, or generational and social costs of environmental damage and where people had never found a site. And as long as the storage site is not, and will not be found, the waste remain in the central, more 'OR NOT stored. If the cost includes the cost of a shuttle directly into the sun with the slag can also think. Do not be fooled, the waste is very harmful for a long time, leukemia, your children or grandchildren in the vicinity of a power plant is likely to say the least, and this too is another cost.
And this finding sites undoubtedly unleash a civil war in any real places identified, and these are costs.
- are valuable and popular theories under which the uranium in the next 50 years will be extinct on the planet. invest in a nuclear power plant is to invest several billion euro. put 0 years to build it (the second time the Italian and considering the mess and riots that will happen and they can all slow down), then use the plant for 20 years at most and discard it.
There will then be no progress in the search for the next power simply do not exist because it is over uranium. And yet the nuclear industry already implies a research firm that Italy does not have.
- No country in the world is currently investing in nuclear energy who uses it has never abandoned, and much government subsidy. and they are divesting themselves several U.S. plants. France is the exception, but have too much invested in research over the years for abandoning only gradually.
- the world was dominated by the capital of oil that have influenced the last 100 years, affecting culture and power (and oil 100 years ago was not the best fuel, it was just the fastest and most readily available in America who did leave out many other possible sources especially in terms of research). Nuclear power is the other face of great power and strong parent. in fact they are only 2-3 companies (publicly subsidized) that can create a nuclear power plant (EDF and Areva).
The future of new sources, if you will, as we hope, fully outsourced (also me against the mega wind farms or solar) will really scary cause it to lose control of power management, if you really would invest in alternative sources (instead of investing in nuclear power) and prices go down, we could all produrci energy in the house for everything, without relying on nuclear, gas, petrol, stream, grid, power grids, oil, etc. .. they are all resources and means transport involving large investments that companies have to recover, and then have to control.
Ah, for the record, the gas ed il carbone (supportato però dalle nuove tecnologie) sono le uniche risorse fossili davvero convenienti per “mantenerci” in questi anni, si spera, evolutivi. Ed il carbone a riguardo è molto anti-geopolitico, tutti ce l’hanno, ce n’è tanto, e costa poco, quindi non è soggetto a grandi lobby di potere e commerci.
I soldi di questi grandi investimenti centralizzati si dovrebbe invece usare per investire in ricerca di energia distribuita, partendo dal come catturare l'energia dei nostri tanti mari, la geotermica, la produzione di idrocarburi da canapa o alghe marine, l'ottimizzazione delle ultime vernici fotovoltaiche con cui potremo dipingere auto e palazzi , l’efficienza dei pannelli fotovoltaici anche oltre il silicio, l'eolico ad asse orizzontale o lo studio di generatori sul moto ondoso, sulla fusione fredda già riprodotta in alcuni laboratori di geni visionari,sulle vibrazioni prodotte nei grandi passaggi pedonali e stradali.
Se il nostro governo invece di dare soldi alla Libia per gas, petrolio, femmine e autostrade, con i soldi da investire nel nucleare avesse fittato una porzione di deserto ed installato una 50ina di km di pannelli fotovoltaici stavamo già apposto (questa è quasi una battuta eh..:-)).
Ci sono migliaia di alternative possibili e migliori quelle citate sono davvero poche, ma sarebbero convenienti rispetto al nucleare?
do not know, no one knows now, but as I said earlier this is not a question of cost-benefit analysis. It 's a matter of spirit, the earth is not ours and we should leave our children in better conditions how we found it. The generation of our parents have already eaten the world in terms of energy and environmental no respect for our children and calculation. All 60 of his 70-day have a great debt to how they used the world over the past 50 years. Try to recover the last part of your life, not to be remembered in history books 100 years from now as a generation to be ashamed of. Where do we want che davvero vada il mondo? Come lo vorremmo vedere fra 100 anni?
Grazie
FG
Under 
