Energia nucleare e Green Deal europeo

L’11 dicembre 2019 la Commissione dell’Unione Europea ha presentato il Green Deal europeo.[1]

Esso consiste in una “tabella di marcia con azioni[2] per stimolare l’uso efficiente delle risorse, grazie al passaggio a un’economia circolare e pulita, arrestare i cambiamenti climatici, mettere fine alla perdita di biodiversità e ridurre l’inquinamento. Esso illustra gli investimenti necessari e gli strumenti di finanziamento disponibili e spiega come garantire una transizione giusta e inclusiva.”.[3]

Il Green Deal europeo riguarda anche il settore dell’energia perché “La produzione e l’utilizzo di energia rappresentano oltre il 75% delle emissioni di gas a effetto serra dell’UE.”.[4]

Il terzo principio fondamentale del Green Deal europeo per la transizione verso un’energia pulita si prefigge, tra l’altro, di “sviluppare un settore energetico basato in larga misura sulle fonti rinnovabili”.[5]

Il 1° gennaio 2022, il Financial Times[6] e l’agenzia di stampa Bloomberg[7] hanno dato notizia del fatto che il giorno precedente la Commissione dell’Unione Europea avrebbe inviato ai Governi dei Paesi membri una proposta mirata a far includere:

  • la generazione di energia elettrica tramite gas fossile come fonte di transizione per giungere all’obiettivo della creazione di un settore energetico europeo basato sulle fonti rinnovabili

e

  • la generazione di energia elettrica tramite fissione nucleare come fonte di energia verde, dunque, già idonea a costituire attuazione dell’obiettivo ora citato.

 

Qui di seguito dimostro che l’inclusione dell’energia nucleare nella tassonomia verde dell’U.E. danneggia gravemente l’Unione Europea.

 

BREVE PREMESSA STORICA 

Iniziamo ricordando la storia recente.

Nella seconda metà del ventesimo secolo, i Paesi europei erano pienamente coinvolti nella guerra fredda.[8]

L’arma nucleare era parte di quel contesto geo-politico.

Ciascun Paese dell’Europa occidentale dovette decidere se dotarsene o no.

A tale riguardo, prendo brevemente in considerazione le vicende di due di essi: la Gran Bretagna e la Francia.

 

La Gran Bretagna decise di acquistare le armi atomiche dagli Stati Uniti d’America.[9]

Per il pragmatismo inglese, le armi nucleari erano uno strumento geo-politico e dunque non aveva alcuna importanza il fatto che esse fossero prodotte in patria o acquistate dall’estero.

 

Non così avvenne in Francia dove il forte sentimento di orgoglio per la propria Nazione non poteva conciliarsi con l’acquisto di armi nucleari da un altro Paese.

Per proporre questo ragionamento geo-politico all’opinione pubblica francese senza andare incontro alle forti obiezioni dei costi molto più alti che questa scelta comportava rispetto all’acquisto da un altro Paese delle armi nucleari già fabbricate, si scelse di accostare la geo-politica alla politica energetica.[10]

Non si decise di costruire solo un ristretto numero di centrali necessarie a produrre il materiale per fabbricare le armi nucleari, ma tutte quelle necessarie a impostare la politica energetica francese sull’energia atomica.

La scelta di vendere all’estero sia una parte dell’energia elettrica così prodotta[11], sia la tecnologia per la costruzione delle centrali nucleari[12], era utile per ammortizzare una parte dei costi della nuova politica energetica nazionale.

 

IL PROBLEMA

Veniamo al presente.

Le centrali nucleari francesi hanno bisogno di una decisa opera di ammodernamento il cui costo ammonta a decine di miliardi di euro.[13]

Affrontare questa spesa con i soldi del bilancio nazionale francese irriterebbe i contribuenti.

La forte spesa da affrontare e le gravissime criticità del settore nucleare civile in Francia, già pubblicamente denunciate nel 2016[14], causerebbero vibranti proteste sociali.

Una facile ricerca su internet dà conto del fatto che “Dall’inizio dei negoziati sulla tassonomia dell’UE, la Francia ha spinto per reintrodurre l’energia nucleare, con grande sgomento della Germania.”.[15]

Il medesimo strumento riporta che “Lanciato nel 2018, il piano d’azione per la finanza sostenibile della Commissione ha lo scopo di incanalare i flussi di capitale verso attività economiche sostenibili. Nell’ambito di questo processo, la Commissione ha presentato nel maggio 2018 una proposta per un quadro normativo per gli investimenti sostenibili, chiamato anche regolamento sulla tassonomia.”.[16]

Ebbene, con tutta la possibile buona fede, è difficile non vedere lo stretto collegamento tra le gravissime criticità del settore nucleare civile in Francia, pubblicamente denunciate nel 2016, e l’azione di lobby della Francia per l’inserimento dell’energia nucleare nella tassonomia verde dell’Unione Europea fin dall’inizio dei relativi negoziati nel 2018.

 

Per abbassare i costi dell’ammodernamento delle centrali nucleari e l’impatto finanziario delle criticità del settore alle quali ho accennato qui sopra, sarebbe oltremodo utile che l’Unione Europea finanziasse l’energia elettrica prodotta con la fissione nucleare.

In questo modo, infatti, verrebbe allargata la platea dei contribuenti che dovrebbero affrontare la spesa: da quelli di una sola Nazione a quelli di tutti gli Stati membri dell’Unione Europea.

 

Il problema di questa soluzione è la completa perdita di credibilità dell’Unione Europea.

L’energia elettrica da fissione nucleare non è verde a causa dei problemi in caso di incidente[17] e delle scorie radioattive[18] che la generazione dell’elettricità dal sole e dal vento non presentano.

La fissione nucleare per produrre energia elettrica, inoltre, non è rinnovabile a causa del fatto che la generazione dell’uranio e del plutonio – al pari del petrolio e del gas – occupa il tempo di intere ere geologiche[19], mentre la fonte solare e la fonte eolica sono generate ogni giorno.

 

Se l’Unione Europea finanziasse il gas e la fissione nucleare come fonti di transizione, rinnovabili e/o verdi, comunicherebbe a tutti che le linee di politica da essa stessa annunciate (“sviluppare un settore energetico basato in larga misura sulle fonti rinnovabili”[20]) possono essere abbandonate in considerazione degli interessi economico e geo-politico a esse contrarie espresse da qualcuno dei suoi Stati membri (ripartire fra tutti i cittadini europei il costo dell’ammodernamento delle sue centrali nucleari e le criticità del proprio settore nucleare civile).

 

Di fronte a questo stato di cose, ogni Stato membro dell’Unione Europea prenderebbe atto del fatto che non sono questi i motivi per i quali ha scelto di entrare nell’Unione Europea.

Nulla di meglio per alimentare le tesi degli euro-scettici di abbandonare l’Unione Europea e l’euro e per dividere gli Stati europei.

 

LE SOLUZIONI 

Sono convinto che nessuno, nelle istituzioni dell’Unione Europea, desidera il verificarsi di queste conseguenze.

Per queste ragioni, propongo che l’Unione Europea:

  • rigetti la proposta di inserire il gas e/o la fissione nucleare come fonti di transizione per la produzione di energia;
  • rigetti la proposta di inserire il gas e/o la fissione nucleare come fonti verdi e/o rinnovabili per la produzione di energia;
  • finanzi la ricerca e la produzione di energia solo dall’idrogeno generato senza l’impiego di combustibili fossili, dalla fusione nucleare dell’idrogeno, dal sole, dal vento, da impianti idroelettrici, dalle biomasse, dalla geotermia, dal movimento ondoso, dall’efficientamento della rete elettrica, dal risparmio energetico.

 

Propongo altresì che gli Stati membri dell’Unione Europea:

  • dimezzino il prelievo fiscale sulla produzione di energia elettrica da fissione nucleare solo per il caso di impiego di combustibile nucleare già usato con il risultato concreto di diminuire la sua radioattività a partire dalla soglia del novanta per cento[21] della radioattività che il combustibile in parola aveva al momento del suo primo impiego per la produzione di energia.

 

Vi ringrazio per il vostro tempo e per la vostra attenzione.

 

 

AGGIORNAMENTO

“Dall’altra il gigante energetico Edf, appesantito dai debiti, si prepara a una colossale ristrutturazione che dovrebbe prevedere la cessione di tutte le attività nel campo delle rinnovabili per potersi concentrare solo sul nucleare e finanziare sei nuovi reattori EPR.

 

Ma poiché le sofferenze economiche e finanziarie vengono proprio dal nucleare, questa mossa sarà probabilmente realizzata solo dopo la completa nazionalizzazione di EDF. Al momento proprietà dello Stato per l’80% delle quote. Al momento gli interessati smentiscono, ma le Borse sono già in fibrillazione.”

 

Cito da Gianluca Ruggieri, “Rinnovabili, perché la Francia è l’unico Paese ad aver mancato gli obiettivi europei”, 22 aprile 2022, in:

https://valori.it/rinnovabili-francia-nucleare-carbone/

 

 

NOTE A PIE’ DI PAGINA

[1] La cronologia degli eventi del Green Deal europeo è pubblicata su

“Un Green Deal europeo

Puntare a essere il primo continente a impatto climatico zero”, in:

https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_it

 

“Il Green Deal europeo: domande e risposte”, in italiano:

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/it/QANDA_19_6690

 

“The European Green Deal: Questions & Answers”, in inglese:

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_19_6690

 

 

[2] La tabella di marcia del Green Deal europeo è pubblicata su

“Allegato della comunicazione sul Green Deal europeo

Tabella di marcia – Azioni chiave”, in:

EUR-Lex – 52019DC0640 – IT – EUR-Lex (europa.eu)

 

La tabella di marcia è disponibile anche in inglese su

“Annex to the Communication on the European Green Deal

Roadmap – Key actions”, in:

EUR-Lex – 52019DC0640 – EN – EUR-Lex (europa.eu)

 

 

[3] Cito da “Il Green Deal europeo illustra le strategie per fare dell’Europa il primo continente al mondo a impatto climatico zero entro il 2050, dando impulso all’economia, migliorando la salute e la qualità della vita delle persone e tutelando la natura e senza che nessuno sia escluso da questo processo”

Comunicato stampa, 11 dicembre 2019, Bruxelles, in:

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/it/ip_19_6691

 

 

[4] Cito da “L’energia e il Green Deal”, in:

https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal/energy-and-green-deal_it

 

La citazione è disponibile anche in inglese su

“Energy and the Green Deal”, in:

https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal/energy-and-green-deal_en

 

 

[5] “Il Green Deal europeo si concentra su 3 principi fondamentali per la transizione verso l’energia pulita, che contribuiranno a ridurre le emissioni di gas a effetto serra e a migliorare la qualità della vita dei nostri cittadini:

 

  1. garantire un approvvigionamento energetico dell’UE sicuro e a prezzi accessibili
  2. sviluppare un mercato dell’energia pienamente integrato, interconnesso e digitalizzato
  3. dare la priorità all’efficienza energetica, migliorare il rendimento energetico dei nostri edifici e sviluppare un settore energetico basato in larga misura sulle fonti rinnovabili.”

(il sottolineato è mio)

 

Cito da “L’energia e il Green Deal”, in:

https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal/energy-and-green-deal_it

 

 

“The European Green Deal focuses on 3 key principles for the clean energy transition, which will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance the quality of life of our citizens:

 

  1. ensuring a secure and affordable EU energy supply
  2. developing a fully integrated, interconnected and digitalised EU energy market
  3. prioritising energy efficiency, improving the energy performance of our buildings and developing a power sector based largely on renewable sources

(the underline is mine)

 

Cito da “Energy and the Green Deal”, in:

https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal/energy-and-green-deal_en

 

 

[6] “Brussels proposes green label for nuclear and natural gas

European Commission paves way for investments despite concerns over toxic waste and methane emissions”, in:

https://www.ft.com/content/7872a05f-9e38-4740-9b1b-4efc69ca316c

 

 

[7] “Europe Seeks Green Label for Certain Gas and Nuclear Projects

European Commission is designing sustainable investment rules

 Draft EU taxonomy proposal sparks criticism from the Greens”, in:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-01/europe-seeks-green-label-for-certain-gas-and-nuclear-projects?srnd=premium-europe

 

 

[8] “È anche, però, il periodo della guerra fredda, destinata a dividere il continente per oltre 40 anni.” Cito da “Storia dell’Unione europea 1945-1959”, in:

https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/history-eu/1945-59_it

 

 

“This period, however, also sees the emergence of a Cold War that divides the continent for more than 40 years.”

Cito da “History of the European Union 1945-59”, in:

https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/history-eu/1945-59_en

 

 

[9]The US also supplied the Royal Air Force and British Army of the Rhine with nuclear weapons under Project E in the form of aerial bombs, missiles, depth charges and artillery shells until 1992. Nuclear-capable American aircraft have been based in the UK since 1949, but the last US nuclear weapons were withdrawn in 2006.

 

In 1982, the Polaris Sales Agreement was amended to allow the UK to purchase Trident II missiles. Since 1998, when the UK decommissioned its tactical WE.177 bombs, the Trident has been the only operational nuclear weapons system in British service. The delivery system consists of four Vanguard-class submarines based at HMNB Clyde in Scotland. Each submarine is armed with up to sixteen Trident II missiles, each carrying warheads in up to eight multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs). With at least one submarine always on patrol, the Vanguards perform a strategic deterrence role and also have a sub-strategic capability.”

(il sottolineato è mio)

 

Cito da “Nuclear weapons of the United Kingdom”, in:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_of_the_United_Kingdom

 

 

[10] DATE ed EVENTI del programma nucleare MILITARE francese

 

“However, in the 1950s a civilian nuclear research program was started, a byproduct of which would be plutonium. In 1956 a secret Committee for the Military Applications of Atomic Energy was formed and a development program for delivery vehicles was started. The intervention of the United States in the Suez Crisis that year is credited with convincing France that it needed to accelerate its own nuclear weapons program to remain a global power.[16] As part their military alliance during the Suez Crisis in 1956 the French agreed to secretly build the Dimona nuclear reactor in Israel and soon after agreed to construct a reprocessing plant for the extraction of plutonium at the site. In 1957, soon after Suez and the resulting diplomatic tension with both the Soviet Union and the United States, French president René Coty decided on the creation of the C.S.E.M. in the then French Sahara, a new nuclear testing facility replacing the CIEES.[17]

 

In 1957 Euratom was created, and under cover of the peaceful use of nuclear power the French signed deals with Germany and Italy to work together on nuclear weapons development.[18] The Chancellor of Germany Konrad Adenauer told his cabinet that he “wanted to achieve, through EURATOM, as quickly as possible, the chance of producing our own nuclear weapons”.[19] The idea was short-lived. In 1958 de Gaulle became President and Germany and Italy were excluded.[citation needed]

 

With the return of Charles de Gaulle to the presidency of France in the midst of the May 1958 crisis, the final decisions to build an atomic bomb were taken, and a successful test took place in 1960 with Israeli scientists as observers at the tests and unlimited access to the scientific data.[20] Following tests de Gaulle moved quickly to distance the French program from involvement with that of Israel.[21] Since then France has developed and maintained its own nuclear deterrent, one intended to defend France even if the United States refused to risk its own cities by assisting Western Europe in a nuclear war.[22]

 

The United States began providing technical assistance to the French program in the early 1970s through the 1980s. The aid was secret, unlike the relationship with the British nuclear program. The Nixon administration, unlike previous presidencies, did not oppose its allies’ possession of atomic weapons and believed that the Soviets would find having multiple nuclear-armed Western opponents more difficult. Because the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 prohibited sharing information on nuclear weapon design, a method known as “negative guidance” or “Twenty Questions” was used; French scientists described to their U.S. counterparts their research, and were told whether they were correct. Areas in which the French received help included MIRV, radiation hardening, missile design, intelligence on Soviet anti-missile defences, and advanced computer technology. Because the French program attracted “the best brains” of the nation, the U.S. benefited from French research as well. The relationship also improved the two nations’ military ties; despite its departure from NATO’s command structure in 1966, France developed two separate nuclear targeting plans, one “national” for the Force de Frappe’s role as a solely French deterrent, and one coordinated with NATO.[22]”

(il sottolineato è mio)

 

Cito da “France and weapons of mass destruction”, in:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction   

 

 

 

DATE ed EVENTI del programma nucleare CIVILE francese

 

France’s decision to launch a large nuclear program dates back to 1973 and the events in the Middle East that they refer to as the “oil shock.” The quadrupling of the price of oil by OPEC nations was indeed a shock for France because at that time most of its electricity came from oil burning plants. France had and still has very few natural energy resources. It has no oil, no gas and her coal resources are very poor and virtually exhausted.

Ironically, the French nuclear program is based on American technology. After experimenting with their own gas-cooled reactors in the 1960s, the French gave up and purchased American Pressurized Water Reactors designed by Westinghouse. Sticking to just one design meant the 56 plants were much cheaper to build than in the US. Moreover, management of safety issues was much easier: the lessons from any incident at one plant could be quickly learned by managers of the other 55 plants. The “return of experience” says Mandil is much greater in a standardized system than in a free for all, with many different designs managed by many different utilities as we have in America.” (il sottolineato è mio)

 

Cito da Jon Palfreman, “Why the French Like Nuclear Energy”, in:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html

 

 

[11] “Over the last decade France has exported up to 70 TWh net each year. In 2018 exports were principally to Italy, Spain, the UK, Germany, Switzerland and Luxembourg.”

 

Cito da World Nuclear Association, “Nuclear Power in France”, articolo aggiornato a gennaio 2021, in:

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx

 

 

[12] “Reactors and especially fuel products and services have been a significant export.”

 

Cito da World Nuclear Association, “Nuclear Power in France”, articolo aggiornato a gennaio 2021, in:

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx

 

 

[13]In February 2014 EDF gave parliament a breakdown of its €55 billion grand carénage reactor life extension program, mostly to be completed by 2025. This includes spending €15 billion replacing heavy components within its fleet of 58 nuclear units, €10 billion on post-Fukushima modifications and €10 billion to boost safety against external events. It pointed out that there are only two parts of a nuclear reactor that cannot be replaced, the reactor pressure vessel and the reactor containment building. The rest of the components have a normal lifespan of 25-35 years and require renovation or replacement. ASN said it would evaluate life extensions on the basis of Generation III criteria regardless of when particular reactors were built. In 2017 EdF’s grand carénage cost estimate to 2025 was reduced to €48 billion, including both maintenance and upgrading, but in October 2020 it was increased to €49.4 billion.

 

In March 2015 the ASN said that there were no generic elements to prevent the twenty 1300 MWe units operating safely to 40 years. It considers the actions planned or already taken by EDF to assess the condition of the reactors and control ageing issues up to their fourth inspection are adequate. However, it said these assessments do not take into account any evaluations of the fitness of the units’ reactor pressure vessels for operation beyond 30 years, nor the results of tests carried out during the reactors’ third ten-yearly inspections, from April 2015 to 2024.

 

In February 2016 the Court of Audit estimated that EdF’s Grand carenage reactor life extension program to 2030, and including €25 billion operating costs, would come to about €100 billion. It said: “Despite uncertainties identified to date, estimated at approximately €13.3 billion, the effects of this program on the production cost of nuclear electricity are limited.” It also noted that the effect of France’s 2015 energy transition law requiring a reduction of nuclear output would likely be much greater, though “no economic evaluation of the potential consequences have been conducted before the publication of the law,” and this was needed.”

(il sottolineato è mio)

 

Cito da World Nuclear Association, “Nuclear Power in France”, articolo aggiornato a gennaio 2021, in:

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx

 

 

[14] “3. The market missing from the French model

 

The sequence of events and public statements following the resignation of EDF’s Chief Financial Officer demonstrated the French government’s strong commitment to the Hinkley Point project.  To facilitate the project’s financing, French taxpayers are required to support EDF twice: the government will inject equity capital into EDF, and not take dividends for a few years.

 

This decision is aligned with the industrial policy followed by the successive French governments for nearly 400 years, which involves creating “national champions”.[12]  A fascinating example is the company “Manufacture royale de glaces de miroirs”, a precursor of Saint Gobain created by Colbert in 1655, under conditions which would now shock competition authorities: creation of a Royal monopoly accompanied by subsidies, allocation of this monopoly to a financier, the Orléans tax collector, and protection of the monopoly against competition and innovation for several decades.[13]

 

The “national champions” which have featured prominently in the politicians’ speeches since the liberation in 1945 are the more recent examples of this industrial policy.  This consistency is remarkable and deserves to be recognised.  Contrary to popular belief, French governments are very consistent.  Revolutions, wars and regime changes have not altered their determination in this matter.  Unfortunately this economic policy is counter-productive.  Since the start of the 18th century, economists have disputed its “intellectual” foundations, and history has since demonstrated its futility.[14]

 

The Areva fiasco is perhaps the most shocking failure of a “national champion”.  The merger of prosperous companies in the early 2000s to create Areva produced a nuclear giant, which political leaders were proud of for a decade.  Now they are trying to protect Areva from bankruptcy, costing the taxpayer around €10 billion.

 

What caused this fiasco?  The immediate cause was the contract to supply an EPR in Finland, which is comparable to Hinkley Point in England: the company agreed to provide megawatthours at a fixed price.  However the Hinkley Point contract is considerably more generous.

 

There is another, deeper cause: the government exercised political and not economic oversight over the company, which lead to a lack of effective control by the shareholders.

 

The French government controlled (and still controls) Areva as a political project, to portray a certain image of France, while it was an industrial company competing with foreign firms in a globalized industry.  For example, the government allowed Areva to take full responsibility for the design, development, and delivery of the EPR in Finland, when nothing in its previous experience suggested it was even remotely qualified for this challenging task.

 

This confusion between the economic and political aspects is very worrying for the taxpayer.  Our objective here is not to question the legitimacy of political decisions.  Since the first cities emerged in the Fertile Crescent, and perhaps before, humans were organised politically.  Our objective is to clearly distinguish political decisions, for example the fight against climate change, from the economic tools and methods used to reach these objectives.  In the case of Areva the tools to be used are a sound capital allocation rules, and a rigorous investment approval process.  These extremely ordinary management techniques are taught in every business school and used by thousands of industrial companies.  Non applying them Areva is costing the French taxpayer around €10 billion, and the French economy thousands of qualified jobs.  Despite the efforts of the “French Nuclear Platform“, whose mission is to develop consistent positions against major issues in the French nuclear sector, and to prepare appropriate decisions, this fiasco is a serious blow to the entire sector.[15]

 

The French government has favoured politics over economics when running its nuclear industryBy doing so, as with the British government, it has compromised the viability of the sector.”

(il sottolineato è mio)

 

Cito da FSR – Florence School of Regulation, “Financing French nuclear power in France and overseas”, 29 luglio 2016, in:

https://fsr.eui.eu/nuclear-power-france-overseas/

 

 

[15] “Since the beginning of the negotiations on the EU’s taxonomy, France has been pushing to reintroduce nuclear power, much to Germany’s dismay.”

 

Cito da Cécile Barbière, “Paris, Berlin divided over nuclear’s recognition as green energy”, traduzione di Daniel Eck, in:

https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/france-and-germany-divided-over-nuclears-inclusion-in-eus-green-investment-label/

 

 

[16] “Launched in 2018, the Commission’s sustainable finance action plan is meant to channel capital flows towards sustainable economic activities. As part of this process, the Commission issued in May 2018 a proposal for a regulatory framework for sustainable investment, also called the Taxonomy Regulation.”

(il sottolineato è mio)

 

Cito da “Green investments: EU progresses towards an EU-wide taxonomy”, 05 luglio 2019, in:

https://www.ferma.eu/green-investments-eu-progresses-towards-an-eu-wide-taxonomy/

 

 

[17] “17 October 1969   Saint-Laurent, France 50 kg of uranium in one of the reactors at the Saint-Laurent Nuclear Power Plant began to melt, an event classified at ‘level 4’ on the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES).[82] As of March 2011, this remains the most serious civil nuclear power accident in France.

12 September 2011    Marcoule, France       One person was killed and four injured, one seriously, in a blast at the Marcoule Nuclear Site. The explosion took place in a furnace used to melt metallic waste and did not represent a nuclear accident.” (il sottolineato è mio)

 

Cito da “Nuclear power in France”, in:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

 

 

“Worldwide, many nuclear accidents and serious incidents have occurred before and since the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. Two thirds of these mishaps occurred in the US.[1] The French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) has concluded that technical innovation cannot eliminate the risk of human errors in nuclear plant operation.

At least 57 accidents and severe incidents have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster, and over 56 severe incidents have occurred in the USA. Relatively few accidents have involved fatalities.[6]

 

Note that not all ratings are final as Cancer and Uncounted/Hidden results may have/will occur.”

(il sottolineato è mio)

 

Cito da “List of nuclear power accidents by country”, in:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country

 

 

Si veda anche “Lists of nuclear disasters and radioactive incidents”, in:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_nuclear_disasters_and_radioactive_incidents

 

 

[18]Nuclear waste is an enormously difficult political problem which to date no country has solved. It is, in a sense, the Achilles heel of the nuclear industry. Could this issue strike down France’s uniquely successful nuclear program? France’s politicians and technocrats are in no doubt. If France is unable to solve this issue, says Mandil, then “I do not see how we can continue our nuclear program.””

(il sottolineato è mio)

 

Cito da Jon Palfreman, “Why the French Like Nuclear Energy”, in:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html

 

 

[19] “So, we know that the Earth’s uranium was produced through one or more of these processes, and that this material was inherited by the solar system of which the Earth is a part.

We can estimate how long ago this synthesis of uranium occurred, given:

The present day abundances of U-235 and U-238 in the various ‘shells’ forming our planet.

A knowledge of the half-lives of these isotopes.

The age of the Earth (ca. 4.55 billion years) – known from various radiometric ‘clocks’, including those of the uranium-to-lead decay chains.

We can calculate the abundances of U-235 and U-238 at the time the Earth was formed. Knowing further that the production ratio of U-235 to U-238 in a supernova is about 1.65, we can calculate that if all of the uranium now in the solar system were made in a single supernova, this event must have occurred some 6.5 billion years ago.

This ‘single stage’ is, however, an oversimplification. In fact, multiple supernovae from over 6 billion to about 200 million years ago were involved.

It is likely that the process or processes which transferred uranium from the mantle to the continental crust are complex and multi-step. However, for at least the past 2 billion years they have involved:

  • Formation of oceanic crust and lithosphere through melting of the mantle at mid-ocean ridges.
  • Migration of this oceanic lithosphere laterally to a site of plate consumption (this is marked at the surface by a deep-sea trench).
  • Production of fluids and magmas from the downgoing (subducted) lithospheric plate and overriding mantle ‘wedge’ in these subduction zones.
  • Transfer of these fluids/melts to the surface in zones of ‘island arcs’ (such as the Pacific’s Ring of Fire).
  • Production of continental crust from these island arc protoliths, through remelting, granite formation and intra-crustal recycling.

Since 2.5 billion years ago, ore deposits of uranium have been formed primarily where reduction of uranium-bearing fluids was achieved, for example by bacteria or through contact with graphitic shales.”

(il sottolineato è mio)

 

Cito da World Nuclear Association, “The Cosmic Origins of Uranium”, articolo aggiornato ad aprile 2021, in:

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/the-cosmic-origins-of-uranium.aspx

 

 

[20] Si veda il terzo principio fondamentale del Green Deal europeo citato nella nota 5.

 

 

[21] “More than 90% of its potential energy still remains in the fuel, even after five years of operation in a reactor.”

 

Cito da United States of America, Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy, “5 Fast Facts about Spent Nuclear Fuel”, 30 marzo 2020, in:

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel

 

Le citazioni sono state verificate alla data di pubblicazione di questo articolo sul sito www.giorgiocannella.com  

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Lascia un commento

Il tuo indirizzo email non sarà pubblicato.

Questo sito usa Akismet per ridurre lo spam. Scopri come i tuoi dati vengono elaborati.