not agree on the economic and ecological criteria. In the end, consumers pay
Silvio Berlusconi is aware of something that his fellow billionaire Warren Buffet does not know? soon was re-elected prime minister in May last year, his advisers announced that they want to bring the nuclear in Italy. Citing the soaring price of oil, Claudio Scajola, Minister of Economic Development, said the government wants to build five nuclear power plants over the next five years.
Meanwhile, Buffet rejected the nuclear option for the United States. "From an economic point of view it makes no sense" said the legendary investor whose decades of fabulous profits and share successes have made him a true god in the eyes of many investors do-it-yourself, not to mention partner informal co-founder of Microsoft, Bill Gates. In 2007, one of the companies Buffet has spent a good 13 million dollars to try to understand whether or not to buy a nuclear plant in Idaho. The idea was abandoned after the researches and studies indicated that nuclear electricity could not produce 'affordable'. "The the fact that someone like Buffet do away with a potential investment, having spent a good 13 million dollars just to analyze and consider a deal, should give pause to anyone and make all undecided, "said Joe Romm, a former assistant secretary of U.S. Department of Energy.
Buffet is not an anomaly. Wall Street, investors and consumers around the world have turned their backs on nuclear energy over twenty years ago and never came back on their feet. Their reasoning is simple: the construction of nuclear plants is very costly, both from a standpoint of cost and risk, and experience shows that have always occurred 
delays and overruns in multi-billionaires, overruns that can cause the bankruptcy of a company if they are not then passed on to consumers.
At first glance, nuclear power seems like a sensible response to the twin challenges of climate change and soaring energy prices, now skyrocketed. But the poor economy of nuclear power is actually a farce. adopt nuclear energy will mean in fact a worsening of climate change and energy security that .
Nuclear power "is so unproductive that does not even need to discuss whether it is clean and safe, "writes Amory Lovins, co-founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute in Colorado and an adviser to governments and corporations for actions in countries around the world. Energy efficiency, wind energy and co-generation (the latter is often called in Europe 'combined heat and power') cost about a third less per kilowatt hour compared to nuclear power.
Since bulbs and more efficient engines can be installed within a few weeks, and wind turbines and the co-generation can be put online within a couple of years, there are inherent advantages compared to nuclear power plants which instead known to take decades to complete. According to reported by Lovins, for every dollar invested in efficiency, other sources of green electricity yield from 1.4 to 11 times more in terms of reducing CO2 emissions compared to nuclear power.
However, the myth of nuclear energy is hard to die, and Berlusconi is not the only politician to advocate the idea of \u200b\u200brevival . John McCain, the Republican U.S. presidential candidate, wants to build 45 new plants by 2020. Political leaders in Russia, France, Britain and other countries say they are proponents of a nuclear revival. These supporters should consider the news coming from Finland. The nuclear industry press releases praising the central Olkiluoto-3, currently under construction, as an example and proof that Europe is once again adopting nuclear power. In fact, the work of the station are back about two years compared to earlier estimates, with 50 percent of the costs more than the planned budget which will result in a € 3 billion of extra costs for consumers.
Meanwhile, Buffet rejected the nuclear option for the United States. "From an economic point of view it makes no sense" said the legendary investor whose decades of fabulous profits and share successes have made him a true god in the eyes of many investors do-it-yourself, not to mention partner informal co-founder of Microsoft, Bill Gates. In 2007, one of the companies Buffet has spent a good 13 million dollars to try to understand whether or not to buy a nuclear plant in Idaho. The idea was abandoned after the researches and studies indicated that nuclear electricity could not produce 'affordable'. "The the fact that someone like Buffet do away with a potential investment, having spent a good 13 million dollars just to analyze and consider a deal, should give pause to anyone and make all undecided, "said Joe Romm, a former assistant secretary of U.S. Department of Energy.
Buffet is not an anomaly. Wall Street, investors and consumers around the world have turned their backs on nuclear energy over twenty years ago and never came back on their feet. Their reasoning is simple: the construction of nuclear plants is very costly, both from a standpoint of cost and risk, and experience shows that have always occurred
At first glance, nuclear power seems like a sensible response to the twin challenges of climate change and soaring energy prices, now skyrocketed. But the poor economy of nuclear power is actually a farce. adopt nuclear energy will mean in fact a worsening of climate change and energy security that .
Nuclear power "is so unproductive that does not even need to discuss whether it is clean and safe, "writes Amory Lovins, co-founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute in Colorado and an adviser to governments and corporations for actions in countries around the world. Energy efficiency, wind energy and co-generation (the latter is often called in Europe 'combined heat and power') cost about a third less per kilowatt hour compared to nuclear power.
Since bulbs and more efficient engines can be installed within a few weeks, and wind turbines and the co-generation can be put online within a couple of years, there are inherent advantages compared to nuclear power plants which instead known to take decades to complete. According to reported by Lovins, for every dollar invested in efficiency, other sources of green electricity yield from 1.4 to 11 times more in terms of reducing CO2 emissions compared to nuclear power.
However, the myth of nuclear energy is hard to die, and Berlusconi is not the only politician to advocate the idea of \u200b\u200brevival . John McCain, the Republican U.S. presidential candidate, wants to build 45 new plants by 2020. Political leaders in Russia, France, Britain and other countries say they are proponents of a nuclear revival. These supporters should consider the news coming from Finland. The nuclear industry press releases praising the central Olkiluoto-3, currently under construction, as an example and proof that Europe is once again adopting nuclear power. In fact, the work of the station are back about two years compared to earlier estimates, with 50 percent of the costs more than the planned budget which will result in a € 3 billion of extra costs for consumers.
0 comments:
Post a Comment