">
and for several years now that we speak of the exhaustion of nonrenewable resources like oil, coal, gas and although there were still many, we all under the eyes of the wars that can erupt to steal.
Many simply dismiss the problem by promoting the use of renewable energy sources such as wind turbines, hydroelectric dams, photovoltaic panels, geothermal plants. But think about it, there are few occasions when these clean technologies can meet the energy needs of entire countries.
Already, in fact these are precisely the two points that could counteract in a broad debate on renewable energy sources:
A. Renewable energies are no doubt better because they do not produce as well as being unlimited carbon dioxide and oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, the main causes of ozone depletion and the greenhouse effect.
B. Even with their benefits, they are not able to bridge the gap and 
nergetiche that would allow the abandonment of nuclear combustion.
In fact this last point is not so drastic, because with a more responsible and less wasteful of energy by all would be possible to depend solely on renewable energy. This is also an important issue to be taken into account: Often the presence of the richest areas of coal or oil to nations with no dependencies created, resulted in wars, but it would be impossible to imagine, in a not too distant future, wars for the most windy or sunny?
However, to develop a collective approach in saving energy in the world with the political and social situation, it would be unreal, and for other problems is the lack of a sense of overall change.
It is at this point that nuclear power comes into play: it does not pollute, is unlimited and could provide all the necessary energy, but of course also has many negative aspects. The process of nuclear fission was an idea of \u200b\u200bEinstein, that not invented as a weapon, but he decided to develop it as such to prevent the Nazis develop.
Later it was thought to be one that, with the heat caused by the explosion in energy transmit atomic vapor resulting from the rapid evaporation of water.
now critical of nuclear power is turned on very much to prohibit its use in some European countries including Italy, the main suspicions are
disasters in the past-I (Chernobyl), however, due to inadequate management;
The difficulty in disposing of the waste;
-Localization centers, which of course nobody wants to close;
The difficulty in transportation of raw material (uranium 235) and waste, both radioactive.
These are just the main problems is then to contemplate the fact that these structures could easily be the victim of terrorist attacks.
My personal opinion is in favor of the use of nuclear power for energy production, since, as I mentioned above, a collective commitment to the use of renewable energy only natural it would be impossible.
And given that oil will end soon & Co., and with them many problems, we must begin to solve the new ones that we have with nuclear power. About the disasters in the past, I think that now with today's technology can be prevented as well as to terrorist attacks. If not, I'll see when I become an adult.
To locate centers should place them near the uranium mines, thus solving the problem of transportation.
The main problem is the management of waste: If we are unable to manage the waste problem, here in Italy, as we'll get through with the nuclear waste?
important idea, but should be thorough and verified, it would be this: half a century ago 'splits the uranium-235 because it is easily divisible, and shall remain so. Note that this field is so important, there has been no progress? If this were to break down some other material, which is of dimensions, such as waste, we end up with less waste that may not even be radioactive!
Unfortunately this idea is not entirely unfounded, but he knows it were possible ...
is my idea!
Francesco Cavalleri
0 comments:
Post a Comment