.gif){kind=spacer}
For years we repeat that the total cost of an energy source is not just the sum of pocket costs, of course. The environmental effects, often long term, are additional costs that are never calculated by Governments and engineering consultancy firms - construction companies or ministries - providing them with baseline data on the projects.
But the impact generates fundamental environmental costs in the final calculation. We saw with the spread and abnormal pathological wind energy, for example, that has destroyed the landscape of mountain resorts in southern Italy, moreover, with very little energy gain, and now it is starting to see even in photovoltaic systems, which threaten to cover vast areas of land in Sicily and other southern regions, a vocation agricultural, ravaging the traditional image and undermining years of quality tourism, real wealth of the South
But back to the pure production costs, it is very interesting that this year, 2010, the production of solar energy - according to a report published in the United States for the North Carolina Waste Awareness Network (NC WARN) by John O. Blackburn and Sam Cunningham, economists specializing in renewable energy - is more convenient in terms of economic costs of nuclear energy.
The historic crossover, or intersection of the cost curves, it is clear from the graph that we publish, taken from a study of two experts.
The truth, worrying is that the costs of nuclear power plants are increasing dramatically from year to year, as seen from the table that the report public on the last page (page 18), almost one scoop, having regard to the confidentiality of interested companies manufacturers and governments, which often yielded inconsistent data deliberately just aggregated together.
The table, which includes nuclear power plants in the United States and Canada, it is noted that the estimated cost per reactor in 2010 increased nearly 500 percent compared to 2005. For example, the reactors of Constellation Energy (1600 MW), which in 2005 had each at a cost of $ 2 billion in 2010 cost 9.60000000000 dollars. And the reactors at the PPL (same energy capacity) have been rising dramatically in just two years, from $ 4 billion (each) in 2008-2009 to 13-15 billion dollars in 2010. So much so that a project of the Atomic Energy of Canada, in Darlington, has been canceled. In two years, from 2007 to 2009, was multiplied by 3.48000000000 to 12,960,000,000 dollars each. Madness. For "only" 1200 MW
The report, after the New York Times è stato ripreso anche dal Corriere della Sera con un favorevole articolo .
Voi credete che questo nuovo rapporto di costi farà rinsavire i politicanti e i procacciatori di affari che gravitano attorno al sottobosco politico, che mestano nelle "Grandi Opere" con evidenti secondi fini? Ma neanche per sogno: non cambieranno idea. Semmai, cercheranno di dimostrare che non è vero: il nucleare è ancora conveniente. Se solo l’opinione pubblica, condizionata dagli ambientalisti, li lasciasse "liberi" di impiantare 1, 10, 100 centrali nucleari…
Immaginiamo poi che succederebbe in Italia, dove il giochino delle aste al ribasso è diffusissimo, vero malcostume mafioso national, so that even a kilometer of highway doubles its cost in a few years. Imagine the amount of orders on nuclear power, and the cascade of money for thousands of rivulets. Certainly not the vulgar bribes, let alone (this is not cover misuse of a terrace, with the mayor of a town that turns a blind eye), but the rates of the order of billions of euro to businessmen and politicians recognized brokers.
is certainly no part of this undergrowth the Istituto Bruno Leoni, very serious and prestigious liberal think tank, which often - but rarely on the ecology and almost never on the nuclear issue - we agree. Well, this time we have to congratulate them, as good liberals love dell’obiettività e dell’esattezza scientifica, anche se – anzi, proprio perché – hanno trovato un grosso difetto di metodo nello studio che abbiamo appena descritto, e che senza il loro contro-studio ci sarebbe certamente sfuggito.
Secondo il contro-rapporto di Daren Bakst e Carlo Stagnaro, dell’IBL, il rapporto americano conterrebbe una serie di inesattezze o "espedienti" metodologici che ne rendono poco credibile il risultato finale a favore dell’energia solare.
Il principale è quello di aver inserito nel calcolo dei costi del solare anche le sovvenzioni pubbliche (in questo caso americane), senza inserire anche quelle per il nucleare. E’ This is the "trick" - the experts say dell'IBL - with whom the relationship ends to calculate the "costs" of electricity produced from solar energy to consumers in only 15.9 cents / kWh, instead of 35 cents that would be the actual amount obtained from the formula.
is true - argue - that the citizen-consumers would pay less in the solar bill, but then the same, because of government grants, they would pay the difference in taxes. Unexceptionable.
are so many ways to oppose nuclear power in a rational and not fanatical, given the insurmountable problems that raises (from waste to huge investment), that really the last so there seems to be to insert bad data or domesticated in the calculations.
But the impact generates fundamental environmental costs in the final calculation. We saw with the spread and abnormal pathological wind energy, for example, that has destroyed the landscape of mountain resorts in southern Italy, moreover, with very little energy gain, and now it is starting to see even in photovoltaic systems, which threaten to cover vast areas of land in Sicily and other southern regions, a vocation agricultural, ravaging the traditional image and undermining years of quality tourism, real wealth of the South
But back to the pure production costs, it is very interesting that this year, 2010, the production of solar energy - according to a report published in the United States for the North Carolina Waste Awareness Network (NC WARN) by John O. Blackburn and Sam Cunningham, economists specializing in renewable energy - is more convenient in terms of economic costs of nuclear energy.
The historic crossover, or intersection of the cost curves, it is clear from the graph that we publish, taken from a study of two experts.
The truth, worrying is that the costs of nuclear power plants are increasing dramatically from year to year, as seen from the table that the report public on the last page (page 18), almost one scoop, having regard to the confidentiality of interested companies manufacturers and governments, which often yielded inconsistent data deliberately just aggregated together.
The table, which includes nuclear power plants in the United States and Canada, it is noted that the estimated cost per reactor in 2010 increased nearly 500 percent compared to 2005. For example, the reactors of Constellation Energy (1600 MW), which in 2005 had each at a cost of $ 2 billion in 2010 cost 9.60000000000 dollars. And the reactors at the PPL (same energy capacity) have been rising dramatically in just two years, from $ 4 billion (each) in 2008-2009 to 13-15 billion dollars in 2010. So much so that a project of the Atomic Energy of Canada, in Darlington, has been canceled. In two years, from 2007 to 2009, was multiplied by 3.48000000000 to 12,960,000,000 dollars each. Madness. For "only" 1200 MW
The report, after the New York Times è stato ripreso anche dal Corriere della Sera con un favorevole articolo .
Voi credete che questo nuovo rapporto di costi farà rinsavire i politicanti e i procacciatori di affari che gravitano attorno al sottobosco politico, che mestano nelle "Grandi Opere" con evidenti secondi fini? Ma neanche per sogno: non cambieranno idea. Semmai, cercheranno di dimostrare che non è vero: il nucleare è ancora conveniente. Se solo l’opinione pubblica, condizionata dagli ambientalisti, li lasciasse "liberi" di impiantare 1, 10, 100 centrali nucleari…
Immaginiamo poi che succederebbe in Italia, dove il giochino delle aste al ribasso è diffusissimo, vero malcostume mafioso national, so that even a kilometer of highway doubles its cost in a few years. Imagine the amount of orders on nuclear power, and the cascade of money for thousands of rivulets. Certainly not the vulgar bribes, let alone (this is not cover misuse of a terrace, with the mayor of a town that turns a blind eye), but the rates of the order of billions of euro to businessmen and politicians recognized brokers.
is certainly no part of this undergrowth the Istituto Bruno Leoni, very serious and prestigious liberal think tank, which often - but rarely on the ecology and almost never on the nuclear issue - we agree. Well, this time we have to congratulate them, as good liberals love dell’obiettività e dell’esattezza scientifica, anche se – anzi, proprio perché – hanno trovato un grosso difetto di metodo nello studio che abbiamo appena descritto, e che senza il loro contro-studio ci sarebbe certamente sfuggito.
Secondo il contro-rapporto di Daren Bakst e Carlo Stagnaro, dell’IBL, il rapporto americano conterrebbe una serie di inesattezze o "espedienti" metodologici che ne rendono poco credibile il risultato finale a favore dell’energia solare.
Il principale è quello di aver inserito nel calcolo dei costi del solare anche le sovvenzioni pubbliche (in questo caso americane), senza inserire anche quelle per il nucleare. E’ This is the "trick" - the experts say dell'IBL - with whom the relationship ends to calculate the "costs" of electricity produced from solar energy to consumers in only 15.9 cents / kWh, instead of 35 cents that would be the actual amount obtained from the formula.
is true - argue - that the citizen-consumers would pay less in the solar bill, but then the same, because of government grants, they would pay the difference in taxes. Unexceptionable.
are so many ways to oppose nuclear power in a rational and not fanatical, given the insurmountable problems that raises (from waste to huge investment), that really the last so there seems to be to insert bad data or domesticated in the calculations.
0 comments:
Post a Comment