NUCLEARE. Si parte.

[dDuck (POL)]

Guarda, suona strano anche a me, ma lui sostiene che si potrebbe sfruttare questo fenomeno "piezonucleare" legato al principio della cavitazione a ultrasuoni per innescare sequenze di reazioni in altri materiali (come l'acido borico). Secondo lui si potrebbe arrivare a una resa di 3:1. (energia ottenuta vs quella spesa per l'innesco iniziale).

Tra l'altro parla della possibilità di trasformare le scorie radioattive in scorie inerti con lo stesso sistema.

Dal momento che sembra di essere nel Paese delle meraviglie, volevo pareri scientifici al riguardo, se qualcuno ne ha.

io nn sono 1 grande esperto (kiedi a ronni, grifo e epiro)

pero e' 1 principio kimiko o 1 principio nucleare ?

[liberaldreamer]

io nn sono 1 grande esperto (kiedi a ronni, grifo e epiro)

pero e' 1 principio kimiko o 1 principio nucleare ?

Ho letto molto velocemente e potrei aver capito male, ma in pratica si strappano i neutroni dal nucleo sparando ultrasuoni e acqua. Direi nucleare.

[dDuck (POL)]

Ho letto molto velocemente e potrei aver capito male, ma in pratica si strappano i neutroni dal nucleo sparando ultrasuoni e acqua. Direi nucleare.

quindi si dovrebbero creare isotopi ?!!?!?!?!?!
comunque ben venga la ricerca
ma mi sembra strano, per mettere le mani sul nucleo servono energie enormi concentratissime, un ultrasuono e' solo un onda sonora, con una densita di energia limitata

ciao vado a camminare un po con il mio cagnetto
si kiama newton
http://www.trtfnc.it/newton

altrimenti l energia la tirano fuori dai miei lardi ahahahahahah

[orchiblasta]

http://www.trtfnc.it/newton

Siamo troppo vicini di casa

[Zdenek]

Prime reazioni dagli USA sul "nucleare pizza e mandolino":

Italy's Nuclear Job

By HENRY SOKOLSKI
FROM TODAY'S WALL STREET JOURNAL EUROPE
May 30, 2008

The Italian government, whose public debt of €1.624 trillion is already the world's third largest, seems eager to dig deeper. Last week, recently re-elected Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi made good on his campaign pledge to recommit Italy to nuclear power. This seemed just the thing to address the country's rising oil and gas prices and growing French electricity imports -- except for one thing: Mr. Berlusconi's promised nuclear power plants are unlikely to ever be built.
Why? Three reasons: skyrocketing construction costs; projected build times of one to two decades; and no identifiable Italian community willing to see a nuclear reactor built in their neighborhood.


Are these dour antinuclear projections coming from the greens? No, just the opposite. The latest industry estimate from E.On, a German energy giant working on a large nuclear power plant in Finland, puts the construction cost at €6 billion per plant. Florida Power and Light, a major U.S. electrical utility, came up with a similar number. That's easily 10 times the construction cost of a modern gas-fired plant yielding the same amount of energy. These numbers, it should be noted, only cover the plant's construction, not nuclear waste management or plant operating expenses.
As Italy's premier from 2001 to 2006, Mr. Berlusconi spent lavishly on public projects and repeatedly failed to meet European Union budget targets. He now claims he will show financial restraint.


Yet the managing director of Enel, the government-backed firm most likely to build and operate the proposed reactors, last week cryptically warned that in order to proceed, his firm would need "new regulation and strong agreement on the plan within the country" -- i.e., government guarantees, credits and subsidies.


It might be argued that some deficit spending now will eventually pay off. In the case of nuclear power in Italy, though, the odds are low. Why? Because it will take decades to find out. Italy has not operated or built a nuclear power plant since it shut them all down after the Chernobyl accident of 1987. This hardly augers well for getting any nuclear program off the ground quickly or for operating them without incident.


Nuclear enthusiasts gloss over this. Just last week, Economic Development Minister Claudio Scajola told the Italian employers' federation Confindustria that the Italian government would lay the first construction stone for a new generation reactor within five years. This sounds pretty good. Enel officials, though, were a bit more cautious. They noted that it would take "seven to 10 years" before they could actually bring a reactor on line. Their key Italian competitor, Edison SPA, was more cautious still. It warned that "the first station would have trouble becoming operational before 2020."
Finally, Italy's nuclear critics were openly skeptical. The fourth-generation reactor that the Italian government has pledged to build has not yet even been fully designed and thus could take 20 to 25 years to bring on line. Bottom line: Italian nuclear reactors won't be much of an answer to any energy problem Italy will be facing for at least a decade or more. What energy supplies and demand will be 10 to 20 years from now, as well as what energy will cost, is anybody's guess. Certainly, Mr. Berlusconi and his government will be long gone by then. On the other hand, the high costs and political opposition to any specific nuclear construction site will be politically significant and immediate.
Why, then, did Mr. Berlusconi make the nuclear announcement now? Like the reduction of taxes on gasoline and diesel -- which Rome also announced last week -- it makes the government look like it is doing something about rising oil and gas prices.
Energy experts, though, suspect something a bit more sinister. The announcement could be part of a long-term effort by the largest European utilities to push out smaller competitors by arranging massive government support for large, expensive nuclear power programs. Italians and Europeans can only hope that this speculation is simply wrong.
The EU is supposed to encourage competition and the elimination of government subsidies in the energy sector. It's never had an easy time promoting this. France indirectly subsidizes its nuclear program heavily. German supports for coal are just as well-known. Germany's and France's subsidies of the Finish reactor project that AREVA and Siemens are building, meanwhile, were recently upheld by the European Commission against several complaints.


The worry is that the EU may end up repressing market competition in the energy sector at the very time Europe will need it the most. The EU, after all, claims it is dedicated to reducing carbon emissions. The key to this is increasing efficiencies to reduce overall energy demand and bringing on the most cost-effective of energy technologies. No amount of planning can determine in advance how to do this while reducing carbon emissions in the cheapest and quickest fashion. Instead, the effective enforcement of market mechanisms is Europe's best hope to guide it through the thicket of decisions -- such as choosing between centralized and distributed electrical systems, new versus old technologies, different sources of natural gas, etc.
It's conceivable that such a competition might favor nuclear power in the future. However, given the EU's projected shutdown of 145 reactors in the next 17 years, the likelihood of any net growth in nuclear capacity in the EU will, at best, be many decades away. In the meantime, Italy and Europe would be wise to stay away from energy investments that no private bank would make without government support. For the moment, that would have to include nuclear.

[Andrea12]

Questà è la soluzione:
http://www.kitegen.com/index_it.html

non il nucleare.

[sintierra (POL)]

Come disse Rubbia: non pensate che col nucleare si abbassano i prezzi...

Per pagare la prima nuova centrale nucleare USA, dopo 30 anni che hanno smesso, probabilmente aumenteranno le bollette:

SCE&G requests 37 percent rate increase
Customers would see monthly bills rise over 11 years to pay for two nuclear reactors

http://www.thestate.com/local/story/420422.html

$ 9,8 miliardi di euro sarebbe i costo di due nuovi reattori AP1000

CHE COSA: Due nuovi 1.117 megawatt reattori

QUANDO: Se approvato dalla Commissione della regolamentazione nucleare degli Stati Uniti , la costruzione potrebbe iniziare nel 2011. Il primo reattore è programmato per iniziare la generazione di energia elettrica nel 2016, e la seconda nel 2019.

DOVE: SCE&G’s V.C. Summer Nuclear Station a Jenkinsville, circa 25 miglia a nord-ovest di Columbia

Rifaccio il conto di quanto tempo si ripaga la centrale senza contare gli aumenti e con :

Il costo negli USA è $ 108 | Importo che le famiglie ora pagano per l'utilizzo di 1000 kilowatt di energia elettrica - tipica di utilizzo mensile

9.800.000 / 2237 = 4380,86 $ il kW .... 4380 / 0.108 = 40563 ore
considerando il 90 % di efficenza (per i fermi e per eventuali riduzioni di potenza notturna) 44619,3 ore = 5 anni dall'inizio produzione
(2016)

Paragoniamolo con
http://www.genitronsviluppo.com/2008...miliardi-di-e/

5000 parchi eolici da 8000 MW di capacità installata l'uno per un costo di circa 28 miliardi di euro. L'energia prodotta equivarrebbe ad un massimo di circa 8 centrali nucleari. E poi la Norvegia pompa circa 2,2 milioni di barili di petrolio al giorno e 30 miliardi di euro rappresenterebbero il valore di circa metà anno di produzione del greggio.

40 000 GW per 28 miliardi di euro, sono ....
....un errore

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7541073

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008...tery-hydro.php

Probabilmente il costo per kW istallato è simile, quindi si dovrebbe conoscere l'efficienza e tutti gli altri costi, anche del nucleare, per fare un paragone...


http://www.genitronsviluppo.com/2008...timo-verde-ve/

[Lorenz91]

Siamo una delle nazioni europee con più elevato numero di ore di luce, ci sono certe zone soggette e vento costante, abbiamo la geotermia e numerose altre risorse innovative e rispettose dell'ambiente.
E si ritorna a parlare di nucleare ???

[Breiner252]

Italy's Nuclear Job

By HENRY SOKOLSKI

Executive Director della Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. Hai capito...autorevole, questa faccia d’angelo. http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1357.html
Simpatiche poi queste dichiarazioni: "Even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the [9/11] attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism."
Insomma, uno dei tanti balordi in giro per il mondo. Se Zdenek arriva a citare un neocon americano guerrafondaio, allora è proprio alla frutta, anzi al digestivo.

Are these dour antinuclear projections coming from the greens? No, just the opposite. The latest industry estimate from E.On, a German energy giant working on a large nuclear power plant in Finland, puts the construction cost at €6 billion per plant. Florida Power and Light, a major U.S. electrical utility, came up with a similar number. That's easily 10 times the construction cost of a modern gas-fired plant yielding the same amount of energy. These numbers, it should be noted, only cover the plant's construction, not nuclear waste management or plant operating expenses.

Spiegasse qualcuno a questo ciarlatano che:



E che il gas è quasi quadruplicato, e il carbone è in forte salita:

It might be argued that some deficit spending now will eventually pay off. In the case of nuclear power in Italy, though, the odds are low. Why? Because it will take decades to find out. Italy has not operated or built a nuclear power plant since it shut them all down after the Chernobyl accident of 1987. This hardly augers well for getting any nuclear program off the ground quickly or for operating them without incident.
Nuclear enthusiasts gloss over this. Just last week, Economic Development Minister Claudio Scajola told the Italian employers' federation Confindustria that the Italian government would lay the first construction stone for a new generation reactor within five years. This sounds pretty good. Enel officials, though, were a bit more cautious. They noted that it would take "seven to 10 years" before they could actually bring a reactor on line. Their key Italian competitor, Edison SPA, was more cautious still. It warned that "the first station would have trouble becoming operational before 2020."

E quindi? Dov’è il problema? 12 anni per rivoluzionare l'Italia gli sembrano tanti?
Qual’è l’alternativa di questo fesso?
Ah si…il gas…

The EU is supposed to encourage competition and the elimination of government subsidies in the energy sector. It's never had an easy time promoting this. France indirectly subsidizes its nuclear program heavily. German supports for coal are just as well-known. Germany's and France's subsidies of the Finish reactor project that AREVA and Siemens are building, meanwhile, were recently upheld by the European Commission against several complaints.

E perchè? Perchè sennò si infrange il dogma liberista? Che risate…si arriva a citare un neocon guerrafondaio e liberista pur di sostenere argomentazioni balzane…

The worry is that the EU may end up repressing market competition in the energy sector at the very time Europe will need it the most. The EU, after all, claims it is dedicated to reducing carbon emissions.

Vai col dogma...ma chi lo dice che ci serve la competitività del mercato?

The key to this is increasing efficiencies to reduce overall energy demand and bringing on the most cost-effective of energy technologies. No amount of planning can determine in advance how to do this while reducing carbon emissions in the cheapest and quickest fashion. Instead, the effective enforcement of market mechanisms is Europe's best hope to guide it through the thicket of decisions -- such as choosing between centralized and distributed electrical systems, new versus old technologies, different sources of natural gas, etc.
It's conceivable that such a competition might favor nuclear power in the future. However, given the EU's projected shutdown of 145 reactors in the next 17 years, the likelihood of any net growth in nuclear capacity in the EU will, at best, be many decades away. In the meantime, Italy and Europe would be wise to stay away from energy investments that no private bank would make without government support. For the moment, that would have to include nuclear.

Ma che dobbiamo fare, credere sulla parola di questo imbecille?
Ma va la va…Questo bislacco chieda a Dick Cheney, vero regista della politca americana, perché si sono messi a far le guerre in giro per il mondo, perché Cheney sa tutto, dalla prima all’ultima virgola, e ci sono testimonianze che indicano come fosse talmente ben informato da poter discutere alla pari con esperti del settore petrolifero.
Quando la frittata sarà fatta, e noi avremo dato ascolto a questi fessi, che facciamo? CI suicidiamo?

Pagliacci.

[Breiner252]

Questà è la soluzione:
http://www.kitegen.com/index_it.html

non il nucleare.

Un baraccone ancora in fase di studio.
E noi dovremmo gettarci a capofitto su qualcosa che all'apparenza sembra una colossale bufala (le dimensioni dell'affare sono assurde...)