Dubious future of nuclear energy

16
Dubious future of nuclear energy


The attitude of society to nuclear energy is extremely negative. Those politicians and experts who had criticized it before, after the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant received very weighty arguments. In Japan and other developed countries, atomists suffered a defeat. The construction of new reactors has been stopped, and the coagulation of existing ones is possible. But not all states are ready to abandon atomic energy.

Germany, for example, has shut down eight of its reactors this spring and is going to close all the others by 2022. Most Italians voted to keep their country non-nuclear. Banned the construction of reactors Switzerland and Spain. The Prime Minister of Japan personally promised to do everything possible to reduce his country's dependence on the energy of the atom. This is what the President of Taiwan says. Mexico is focusing its efforts not on building ten reactors, but on developing its natural gas-fired power plants. Belgium speaks of the possibility of abandoning nuclear power plants already by 2015.

As for the United States, an excess of natural gas and insufficient funding have already forced us to think about the extinction of nuclear projects. After Fukushima, the fate of projects has become even more definite. If in the 2007 year 28 applications were filed for the construction of a nuclear power plant before 2020, today we can say that at best three will be built.

In France, which is ahead of the entire NPP capacity per capita, there is a desperate debate. The president supports nuclear energy, and his main adversary, Francois Hollande, proposes to reduce the share of nuclear energy by more than a third by the year 2025. Social polls show that Hollande is more popular in his own country than the current president. Before the accident in Japan, about two-thirds of the population of France supported the development of nuclear energy, today almost as many are in favor of its curtailment.

But not all states treat the nuclear industry negatively. New reactors can be built in the UK, Eastern Europe and South Korea. In Bangladesh, Vietnam, India, Turkey and Iran, Russia will be engaged in the construction of nuclear power plants. The USA, France, Japan and South Korea are working on similar deals in Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey. China continues to build reactors in Pakistan.

Does the idea that none of the client states have a worthy nuclear safety regulation program come to the heads of these nuclear builders? Only in Pakistan there are enough trained personnel who can work on the construction of nuclear power plants and continue to deal with nuclear programs.

Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Syria, Iran and Algeria are seeking to obtain nuclear weapons, or are already conducting relevant development, or trying to get the necessary technology. Pakistan already possesses nuclear weapons. Iran, Egypt, Algeria and Syria have already been seen in actions that violate the measures and safety standards of the IAEA. Some of the countries where it is planned to build nuclear reactors do not respond to calls to reduce the production of nuclear fuel, a process that could in a short time turn Egypt, Turkey, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia and Jordan into countries possessing nuclear weapons.

For the sake of which the whole world is in danger of new catastrophes, when new reactors are being built in such countries?

The first and main reason is simple and clear - money, more precisely - a lot of money. Today, when developed countries are beginning to abandon the construction of new nuclear reactors, suppliers of nuclear solutions have to move to less developed markets in the Middle and Far East, which promise considerable profits. For example, South Korea signed its first contract for the construction of four reactors with the United Arab Emirates in the amount of 20 billions of dollars.

Well, the second reason is geopolitical interests. Russia sells the reactor to Turkey at cost. What is the reason for such generosity? Moscow wants to get a lever of influence on its neighbor, which is capable of creating problems with the construction of oil pipelines. In the situation with Iran, Russia wants to play the role of a superpower, which is an independent arbiter in Tehran’s disputes over the nuclear issue.

Saudi Arabia wants to get an atomic bomb, saying that they will have to develop nuclear weapons if Iran does it. Tehran, on the other hand, insists that its activities in the nuclear industry are connected exclusively with the use of the peaceful atom and solve only energy problems.

Is the risk of repeating Fukushima or Chernobyl and the nuclear arms race in the Middle East worth someone's political interests or a few billion dollars? Let's hope that the danger of building nuclear power plants will be understood not only by developed countries.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

16 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Lech e-mine
    +6
    20 December 2011 07: 55
    Hydrocarbons are NOT ETERNAL anyway there is no alternative to atomic energy in the future.
  2. vadimus
    +3
    20 December 2011 08: 02
    Listening to the greens is, of course, good, but when the priest freezes, then the greens are no longer up to it. Everything needs balance, so you don’t bite your elbows later
  3. Anatoly
    +2
    20 December 2011 08: 32
    In the United States, a lot of money is allocated for promising development of alternative fuel. Although, with their overabundance of natural gas, it would seem an extra waste of money. and yet .. - think about the future, Pindos.
  4. Volkhov
    -5
    20 December 2011 09: 28
    During the year, it is necessary to prepare all nuclear power plants for stopping and filling the active zones with a preservative.
    1. snek
      +2
      20 December 2011 09: 47
      We have more than 15 percent of the electricity generated by nuclear power plants. If they are withdrawn within a year, the country's energy system will simply collapse. It takes at least five years to build the facilities needed for replacement (and this is if built at an accelerated pace). About the necessary money for this, I generally keep quiet.
      1. Volkhov
        -1
        20 December 2011 10: 02
        Horseradish with them, with interest, the basis of the Earth is also a reactor, only spherical, it is known on the eve of the ripple, there is evidence of measurement and visual (in the clouds), and this is a serious disaster with mountain building, so why add infection from destroyed reactors?
        1. snek
          0
          20 December 2011 11: 55
          Quote: Volkhov
          the basis of the Earth is also a reactor, only spherical, it is on the eve of the pulsation, the dates are known, there is a measuring and visual (through the clouds) confirmation

          Of course I apologize, but what are you talking about? What other spherical reactor? What are the ripples? What is the visual confirmation of the clouds?
          1. Volkhov
            -2
            20 December 2011 12: 44
            Take a coin, for example 5 rubles - you will see a two-headed eagle - this is not a mutant, but a symbolic image of the magnetic field lines, on old editions - a Byzantine, Hittite picture in more detail, on the "Mayan calendar" there is a detailed diagram, slightly masked by animation.
            It’s just that when we lost in antiquity, science was banned for us, as the Germans and Japanese after World War II, and the remains of knowledge were hidden in drawings and ornaments for transmission to descendants, it was not by chance that the Nazis were so interested in history and so advanced the technique.
            Modern "nuclear power" has the main goal - to castrate people in a year and make room for the invaders, and 15% of the output is bait. Not a single fish that swallowed the hook ate the worm, and we will not get a kilowatt from the destroyed stations, and the infection will go.
            The war in hidden form continues, after a year - a turning point, their business is to destroy us, ours is to survive and we need less radiation.
            By the way, pay attention to the article here about 500000 coffins in the USA.
            1. snek
              0
              20 December 2011 13: 02
              You have a very interesting and elaborated picture of the world (even if I have a more conservative and simple view of the world, but I will not try to persuade - everyone believes in his own). And to whom did we lose in antiquity, and why didn’t they finish us off then, and where is this told?
              1. Volkhov
                -2
                20 December 2011 13: 34
                We accepted refugees from Venus more than 5000 years ago (they had the first pulsation, it is the strongest) and they decomposed civilization from the inside. Their difference is blue blood and blue bones (hemocyanin), they could not finish off, like a banker cannot shoot cowboys, but can ruin them with taxes and loans. It is written in the old chronicles "40 days evil spirits arrived from Venus," one gets the impression that these were their administrators.
                There are modern finds of blue bones in a casket with the symbol of the outbreak of Venus - this was the adviser to Philip of Macedon. Now they mainly operate through intermediaries such as Masons and bias the development where they need to.
                1. mishan
                  0
                  20 December 2011 20: 25
                  With our common lack of information, and most importantly with the constant complex that they are hiding something from us, you can play as you like! You need to know the measure, and you Volkhov, it seems carried away.
                  1. Volkhov
                    -1
                    20 December 2011 21: 59
                    The Nazis are silent, the Zionists are deceiving (the tale of the "solar storm"), and the Russian approach is to explain, traditionally, people should have a chance, there is a difference between war and massacre. The technical side is checked if desired. I see no reason to passively help the enemy, and your discontent is not the main and not the first problem.
    2. ytqnhfk
      0
      20 December 2011 17: 51
      It is necessary to develop nuclear power plants and then simply invest money in these developments to increase efficiency and waste will become simpler and energy use even cheaper!
  5. Force 75
    +1
    20 December 2011 09: 57
    It is necessary to invest in the development of thermonuclear fusion
  6. wk
    +2
    20 December 2011 10: 21
    I wonder how practical Germany has become a hostage of "green" blackmail, hydrocarbon reserves are not eternal, and in alternative energy there is more of a corruption component than real achievements.
    Quote: Force 75
    It is necessary to invest in the development of thermonuclear fusion

    certainly necessary, but this is a distant (centuries) perspective. There is no alternative to the atom, and if you look at the dangers of nuclear energy with a cold head, they will turn out to be very exaggerated.
    1. Volkhov
      -2
      20 December 2011 13: 02
      The deceased’s cold heads, they really aren’t afraid, even storage is better, because microbes die.
    2. +1
      20 December 2011 17: 40
      Quote: wk
      but this is a distant (centuries) perspective.

      Well, why for centuries is a distant prospect. As far as I know, an international project is currently operating (in my opinion in France) with the construction of a prototype fusion electron. stations, but recently they don’t say anything about it.

      About the article. As I understand it, the author is hinting that we should step on the throat of our song and abandon the construction of a nuclear power plant for the sake of some mythical fears about the atomic bomb of Iran and the UAE? In my opinion, the United States poses a much greater danger to the world. And what, now can the USA ban? wink

      And developed countries abandoned nuclear power plants because they have nothing more to develop there, but for developing countries, especially with such vast and cold territories as Russia, nuclear power plants are very relevant. Where to get energy for new industries? Thousands of hectares of solar panels lay? Prior to the development of thermonuclear fusion, it is necessary not to ban nuclear power plants, but to develop more advanced methods for ensuring safety.
  7. Darn
    +1
    20 December 2011 13: 40
    In addition to atomic inertia, there are other already old technologies, but for today I consider it relevant:
    1, the gas generator has been used since 1930.
    briefly fuel (wood, peat) after combustion, its gas is formed
    served in an internal combustion engine, the engine spins the generator
    we get electricity. By the way, electricity obtained in this way in 1930 was cheaper at cost than with hydroelectric power stations.
    cons engine power fell. Although in the 50s tractors on the gas generator went.
    Now, if you install such a generator in the village, and smart specialists. So that equipment is not destroyed, it makes sense to talk about the revival of the village.
    2, Bioreactor
    briefly fuel (manure, biomass) all this wealth is fermented and formed
    biogas is fed into the internal combustion engine, the engine rotates the generator
    we get electricity. There will be disposal of manure.
    Here's another energy for the village minus a lot of manure needed.
    In the first five-year period, Stalin said that it was necessary to transfer regions to local energy sources. Small hydro power plants. Peat.
  8. Volkhov
    -3
    20 December 2011 14: 13
    After the Flood there will be oil spills and a lot of combustible garbage - you can burn all this, and get electricity directly from the Earth - the tops of the mountains will be electrified, only the wire will be pulled and a transformer with a spark gap will be installed.
    1. belarus
      +1
      25 December 2011 22: 53
      Che Moder does not ban entogo messiah !!!
      1. 0
        25 December 2011 23: 02
        Devilishly beautifully said!))))
  9. dred
    +3
    20 December 2011 14: 48
    cheaper nuclear power plants there is no replacement yet.
    1. Artemka
      0
      23 December 2011 20: 06
      The main safety is to provide them.
  10. +2
    20 December 2011 18: 10
    Yes, let foreign countries refuse nuclear power plants. It’s better for us to sell more hydrocarbons and energy. So their rejection suits us.
  11. Darn
    0
    21 December 2011 13: 46
    Abroad refuse nuclear power plants only by the fact that they switch to other energy sources.
    1. belarus
      +1
      25 December 2011 23: 03
      In foreign countries there are no new large factories, the population is not growing, and it is aging accordingly and building a nuclear power plant is impractical. Developing countries are always more interesting for the investor (here is the growth of the market, sales and the margin from all of this). Well, how to get cheap products. Well, what kind of energy is the most cheap. Everyone knows.
  12. wk
    0
    4 January 2012 07: 35
    Quote: Here Damn
    In addition to atomic inertia, there are other already old technologies, but for today I consider it relevant: 1, the gas generator has been used since 1930. briefly, fuel (wood, peat) after combustion, gas is formed, it is fed into the internal combustion engine, the engine turns the generators and we get electricity. By the way, the electricity received in this way in 1930 was cheaper at cost than from a hydroelectric power station. cons engine power was falling. Although in the 50s tractors were running on a gas generator. Here, if you install such a generator in the village, and smart specialists. That would not ruin the equipment, it makes sense to talk about the revival of the village. 2, the bioreactor briefly fuel (manure, biomass), all this wealth is fermented and biogas is formed; it is fed into the internal combustion engine, the engine turns the generators and we get electricity. There’s still going to be manure utilization. There’s still energy for the village minus a lot of manure. Still, Stalin said in the first five-year plan that regions need to be converted to local energy sources. small hydro plants. peat.

    I won’t go into details, I’ll just say that it’s all bullshit .... Well, what the heck is manure if for example you need to start a steelmaking furnace or ensure the vital activity of the city of a millionaire ...
  13. 0
    24 December 2014 14: 56
    Better to give up oil. It pollutes the Earth much more than nuclear power plants. In addition, sooner or later it will end. No one will refuse either atomic energy or atomic weapons. And there is nothing to argue here.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"