For more clarity, we have personally asked a few researchers in physics of nuclear fusion in Padua what they think of nuclear power. We must point out that nuclear power plants work by fission. The fission is splitting of a heavy nucleus in most light nuclei, while fusion is the fusion of two light nuclei into a heavier nucleus (which is what happens in the sun).
We thank Dr. Federica Bonomo of CNR Research Scientist at Consorzio RFX, for their cooperation and contacts.
below are the interviews:
"The revival of the debate on nuclear power for me following the surge in oil prices of summer 2008 (crude oil over $ 140 a barrel), and subsequent economic crisis, which also revealed in political and economic one that was known for years in the energy sector, namely the fact that you can not always depend on fossil fuels, especially oil. The surge of recent years is worrying: the average annual price of oil (West Texas Intermediate-WTI) has grown unchecked since 2004, when WTI was $ 30 per year, but then rose in 2005 to $ 40, $ 60 in 2006, $ 80 in 2007, over Average of 100 in 2008. Today, the WTI is $ 83 on a price, however high, if the early 2000 over a $ 40 price was deemed excessive.
In times of energy crisis, they arrange with what we can, certainly a renewed interest in nuclear power has a reason, mainly economic, although there are environmental concerns for the production of CO2 resulting in all 'use of fossil fuels. For me, in general, a decision taken at a time of crisis is still wrong, because it is following an emotional and not rational. Moreover, nuclear fission can not completely replace the oil, and then somehow piece made a flaw. The main thing for me is that it is not worse then the patch the flaw.
All energy sources have their advantages and disadvantages. In the case of nuclear power, the image that comes to mind is that in all of Chernobyl, so the biggest concern is for the safety of a station. Even here, a more rational analysis shows instead that the problems are others, and two in particular: waste and nuclear weapons. Research on nuclear fission (as opposed to the merger) has been ambiguously mixed with military interests, the first fission reactor was built in 1940 by Enrico Fermi in a squash court under the football stadium in Chicago, in order to find the "fuel" best for the atomic bomb. The stack of Fermi showed that the plutonium produced by neutron bombardment of U238 and, therefore, a slag reactors, can be used to produce atomic weapons.
This is perhaps the main concern, why not also need a true atomic fission bomb (like that of Hiroshima) to constitute a serious danger to the public, but also a small conventional explosive device with a small amount of plutonium in it, may already be a weapon of destruction, given the toxic and radioactive properties of plutonium.
The other chapter deals with the waste. The average life of radioactive elements present in the slag can be up to 10 thousand years. It 's a huge amount of time: how to preserve the historical memory of where they were stored? Imagine that we should have a map of Babylon with a detailed description of the buildings. What we see instead? A heap of ruins, among which emerge from the archaeological excavations (lucky for us!) Cuneiform tablets instead of drums of plutonium.
It 's true, however, that the continuous and indiscriminate use of oil scenario anticipates no less troubling. Nuclear power can then be fine, in a limited time, that ten or twenty years, not more, as a "bridge" to energy sources that do not have problems slag, and possibly not as contiguous exploitation of military (or terrorist). Cousin "poor" fission, nuclear fusion, which scientists are working on for over 50 years (since 1958 officially, unofficially since 1951), has these advantages: no waste of reaction, and not easily convertible to military exploits, at least in the version with magnetic confinement. It is not ready yet, but it might be worth investing more, because the imbalance of funding than the fission has always been great (just think of the huge funding of the Manhattan Project during the second world war). "
Dr. Gianluca Spizzo
Padova
Physical - Researcher CNR fusion
Physical - Researcher CNR fusion
"I've seen the studies undertaken by the International Energy Agency (http:/ / www.iea.org) on \u200b\u200benergy projections to 2035. In practice, even taking into account the most optimistic scenario (Scenario450) which, according to the climate summit in Copenhagen (2010), provides for an increase of only 2 degrees of global average temperature, the future is a difficult and challenging. The energy consumption will grow by 36% (population growth, growth economica di Cina, India, Brasile...). La prima sfida sarà di aumentare l'efficienza dell'uso dell'elettricità così da ridurre i consumi del 20%. La CO2 nell'atmosfera (previsione ottimistica) del 35-40%, arrivando a 450ppm. Allora per restare entro questo valore qualunque fonte che non produce CO2 DEVE essere utilizzata altrimenti possono accadere 2 cose (semplificando): 1) abbassiamo il nostro tenore di vita al periodo pre-industriale; 2) ci prepariamo a sconvolgimenti climatici imponenti. Se vogliamo mantenere il nostro tenore di vita e permettere ad altre popolazioni di accedervi e allo stesso desideriamo salvaguardare il nostro pianeta ben vengano tutte le fonti rinnovabili (solare ed idroelettrico in primis) ma anche nucleare da fission (today) Fusion (tomorrow) and all low-carbon sources. The IEA shows that in 2035 we still approximately 50% of energy from fossil fuels and renewables, even tripling their impact will reach to 25% ... the rest as we do? "
Dr. Fulvio Auriemma
Physical - Researchers EURATOM / ENEA fusion
Padova
recently known that 'Public opinion is continually directed towards the choice of plants instead of nuclear fission on alternative energy with the illusion of a possible reduction of tariffs in bolletta, ciò è dovuto principalmente agli umori governativi e interessi personali dei politici di turno che poco hanno a che fare con una reale conoscenza delle problematiche degli impianti a fissione.
Tutti gli impianti a fissione producono scorie radioattive che decadono in millenni, a prescindere da quanto sicuro sia l'impianto stesso. Non esiste nessuna tecnica sicura di stoccaggio, e credo nessuno di noi voglia vivere nelle vicinanze di un deposito scorie. La tanto millantata sicurezza degli impianti di ultima generazione cozza con la reale esigenza di riporre le scorie in un luogo sicuro, senza contare il fatto che l'Italia è un paese ad alto rischio sismico per quasi tutta la superficie.
Non sarebbe il caso invece di riconvertire power plants already operating in the territory re-allocating resources of the useless bridge over the Strait?
Dr. Rita Delogu
Engineer - Researcher EURATOM / ENEA fusion
Padova
