ambra_wandsworth

Recent tragic events in Japan has re-ignited the debate about the safety of nuclear plants and their maintenance.
Italy has had a few operating nuclear power reactors in the past but they were shut down following the Chernobyl accident in the 90s, after a referendum.
Being one of the world's biggest importer of electricity and considering the major cost for the national economy that choice led to, the Government policy seem to have changed and a nuclear program is being planned.

How many of you will vote for the next referendum about nuclear, what's your opinion?

I'm not sure yet.
I was 9 when Chernobyl happened, and I remember how people were worried about contaminated food, water and that plant was a thousand mile away.
Growing up I've realized what happened was partly caused by the obsolescence of the plant partly by human error.

My actual fear is not really about the safety of nuclear energy itself but it's more about people or organizations eventually managing those buildings.
Too many times I've heard of people taking advantages on situations against national interest.
The purpose of having cheaper electrity is good but I hope, in case, they keep the promises and not to see another “ pasticcio all'italiana”.

I think the majority of people is still against; but having a look around Europe, we're surrounded:59 nuclear plants in France, that sells electricity as gold, 5 in Switzerland..not to mention the rest of Europe; and we're talking about 200 km distance from cities like Turin....

Patty

I know I might be wrong, but I am against nuclear. If I have a vote in the referendum then I will vote no. Italy is a seismic country and I just think its not manageable. The government over here leave a lot to desire at the best of times and I really shudder to think what they do in the event of something like a disaster.
My feelings are probably strongly influenced by the fact that my home island (Guernsey) is right next to one of Frances largest nuclear facilities Cap de la Hague. Guernsey has one of the highest rates of cancer in the world and while some may say this is not connected I believe otherwise. This plant has pipes which discharge on the sea bed and so I think this is not good. Greenpeace have tried to measure this but were stopped( or hindered) by the French police.
So yes maybe my opinion is biased but as many of my friends have cancer or have died of cancer then I cant help thinking the way I do.

Isakat

I had a conversation with OH on this topic yesterday.
He thinks that the new age nuclear plants are safe as long as they are built in earthquake safe areas and that renewable energy, no matter how desirable and clean it is, it does not produce enough energy for the economic growth of the world. He is a physicist, so he is bound to think this way.

I am greener than him, although not fanatically and care about the environment. On the other hand I acknowledge that the more the world develops, the more energy it needs and renewable sources might not be enough. I also watch the news and hope that we will not be irradiated by the Fukushima nuclear fallout.

I would like to know where the Italians are going to deposit the nuclear rubbish should they build more nuclear plants. The asbestos was mixed with cement and houses were built with it, the radioactive rubbish was put in ships that were sank in the sea, the sewage was pumped in the sea, so I dread to think where the new radioactive rubbish will be dumped.

So, I will vote against any new nuclear plants being built, but I would like the Greens to give me an alternative on how the world will cope with the increasing demand for energy.
I did my bit by installing 28 photovoltaic panels on the roof of our house producing electricity.

Patty

Well done on the photovoltaic panels

I feel a bit of a twit cos I dont have any profound knowledge - and as you say your OH is a physicist and so I am in awe of that - but I just cant help the way I feel

Isakat

Do not put yourself down Patty, just because you and I are not physicists, does not make us wrong.
The new nuclear plants might be OK in seismically quiet areas, but what if Al Kaeda decides to blow one up?
And you raised a good point about cancers being more prevalent in the population living close to these plants. I remember watching a programme on Sellafield sometime ago and all those local children dying from leukemia.
We have friends who live in Luxembourg and who told us that since they live so close to a French nuclear plant, they can not grow any edible veg in the garden.

indiebird

I must admit I too feel they are not right. Plus they take a long time to go online, plus you need to get rid of the waste somewhere. How is that going to be okay??!! where do you get rid of the waste??

ambra_wandsworth

28 Photovoltaic panels wow! that's really a green choice..
If only they were less expensive and enough to cover energy demand of factories.

You certainly know more than I do about the whole thing, nuclear disposal must be a big issue, I still have to read up on that I don't have enough knowledge at the moment; but if as Patty says, France discharge already on the sea bed it's at least worrying..

It's going to be a referendum to abrogate a law, then who is against must vote yes.

ambra_wandsworth

If one of the five located in France close to the italian boundaries blew up, all North of Italy would be done..
It's EU but every state thinks for itself in terms of resources..
I found this article with a map of nuclear plants around Europe..439 plants..

http://muitaliano.it/2011/01/nuclear...a-lunghissimo/

Considering this country is a bit slow, by the time we decide for nuclear or not the rest of Europe will go green..

chris120

A nuclear power plant costs $1B+, could one be built and operated in (southern) Italy without the involvement of the Camorra? Can you imagine substandard building and electrical equipment, recruitment of unsuitable employees etc?
I am involved in carrying out mathematical risk assessment (aviation, not nuclear) and it seems to me there is a flaw that does not seem to have been mentioned. The plant is being managed by ordinary workers who (to quote CNN) are “, ad-libbing” trying to cure it. Whilst I admire their courage and I can see that the Japanese culture makes them want to find a cure would that happen in Italy? My guess is if this was Italy those workers would have scarpered long ago! I have drawn a comparison recently, when aircraft go wrong the aircrew are doing their best to save their own lives as well as those of the passengers. This is the equivalent of giving civil air crew ejection seats.

Patty

Blimey Chris - I felt down before - but after reading your post I feel even more glum
Everything you say is so true. Its so sad though.

Isakat - talking of fresh veg - I was pregnant in 1986, when Chernobyl happened and I was living in Milano. I was told NOT to eat all the normal things like fresh veg, fresh fruit, fresh milk etc. It was really awful and quite scary.

Isakat

Agree with all you have written 110%.
Someone I know wanted to dismantle an old roof made of asbestos/eternit panels. The neighbours called the police as it is a specialist job and toxic. She found a company that charged an arm and a leg for the job, but when the workers came, they took their shirts off( it was summer) and did the job without using any protection, not even breathing masks.!

indiebird

This makes me feel sick. I watched one of my uncles die slowly and painfully of Asbestosis in the 1990's after working as a builder in the 1950s-1970's in the UK. He literally wasted away to nothing. No compensation no nothing as he had always worked as a casual laborer... and this was in the UK.... I would hate to think of it here.

These ideas make me even less a fan of nuclear... especially in this 'f**k you, I'm alright' world we all seem to live in now.

modicasa

The crass Minister Fazio tells us that it is impossible that there could be an earthquake of 9 Richter in Italy, but forgets that in 1693 there was the Val di Noto earthquake which experts have designated as having been 10 on the Richter scale. Planned nuclear reactors for Sicily (THe Valley of the Temples) are in ahighly seismic zone, and a complete folly. Add to this the likelihood that with substandard cement, and all the usual components of highly expensive public investment they would probably collapse at a slight tremor. Italy is not geomorphically adapted for nuclear plant, as neither is Japan in retrospect. At least the tragic events in Japan should increase the turn out for the nuclear referendum in June.

Isakat

The latest is that the government is still considering nuclear plants, but "solo nelle regioni favorevoli".
I'd like to know which are these regions? The Lega already said they will not allow them in the Nord.
They were discussing in reactivating the old nuclear site near Pomezia, while the Sindaco does not agree.
I doubt anyone will want them in their area, although potentially the areas near the sea are favoured as the plants need lots of water to cool the reactors.

jonwel

The management of toxic waste is in the hands of the Camorra (read Saviano's book, it goes way beyond anything you suspected) and there is no reason to believe it would be any different with nuclear waste. The Environment minister Prestigiacomo makes no mention of this aspect when she assures us that nuclear is no problem.
We already know that other countries send their nuclear waste to Third World countries, whose governments are glad to have the money and then bury it where they see fit. You can imagine with what precautions and supervision and with what effects on the population.

All this without earthquakes! Is there an earthquake-free area? A few years ago when I was on holiday in Britain there was a mini-earthquake even there, with some damage to buildings. Nuclear is not safe anywhere in Italy! So why is the government so enthusiastic about it? It's all a question of contracts, money to be made by the builders.
The say the unit costs of nuclear energy are low, but I suspect that this is calculated when the plant is up and running and doesn't include either waste disposal or the cost of decommissioning after only a few decades.

Alternative sources must be developed and expanded, but there's also another side: the reduction in energy consumption. We need a drastic reduction in packaging, which is often ridiculously over-sized, cultivation of all available land (respecting rational criteria) to reduce food imports which again require energy. There are all kinds of useless activities in present-day society which don't provide real benefits and which we could do without if we organised differently. It's not all a question of "if you want a high standard of living you must accept nuclear energy".