NUCLEARE. Si parte.

[JCC70]

Io sono favorevole al nucleare. L'unica cosa che mi preoccupa è che stiamo parlando del nucleare IN ITALIA. Basta vedere come funziona, in molti casi (eufemismo per evitare querele), per la manutenzione delle strade: aziende amiche dell'assessore di turno si aggiudicano l'appalto, facendosi pagare 100 per poi utilizzare asfalto di scarsa qualità che vale 10 e truffando pure sullo spessore dello strato steso. L'effetto è irritante, visto che si parla di denaro pubblico, ma non drammatico: con le prime piogge autunnali le strade, riasfaltate in primavera/estate, tornano a riempirsi di buche. Non oso immaginare quel che potrebbe succedere con una centrale nucleare.

[Zdenek]

Lasciamo parlare Silvestrini:

Silvestrini spiega perché non crede alla convenienza del piano Scajola
"Costi e problemi troppo grandi, il nucleare è destinato a diminuire di peso"

"Impossibile l'atomo in cinque anni
il nemico è il mercato, non i verdi"

Il caso Usa: "Il bando indetto da Bush senza incentivi è andato deserto"
Resta aperta poi la questione scorie: "Nessun paese l'ha ancora risolto in via definitiva"
di VALERIO GUALERZI

ROMA - Da ambientalista è estremamente realista e pragmatico sul fatto che la lotta al riscaldamento globale non può essere fatta in punta di fioretto, ma altrettanta coerenza Gianni Silvestrini la pretende dai sostenitori del ritorno all'atomo. "Se la situazione climatica dovesse precipitare nei prossimi decenni l'umanità finirebbe con l'utilizzare tutte le armi disponibili incluso il nucleare, superando ogni preoccupazione", ammette l'ingegnere, ex consulente del ministro Bersani, che da anni coordina attraverso il Kyoto Club gli industriali che hanno sposato la validità e la filosofia contenuta nel Protocollo internazionale per la riduzione dei gas serra.

Ingegner Silvestrini, malgrado la premessa, lei però sembra scettico sull'utilità del piano annunciato dal ministro Scajola.
"I cinque anni a cui fa riferimento Scajola mi sembrano improponibili, le procedure in realtà sono lunghissime: si tratta di individuare il sito, ottenere i permessi necessari, stringere accordi internazionali, far approvare i progetti, senza parlare dell'indispensabile consenso sociale. Ma oltre al metodo c'è un problema di merito. Penso che in realtà si tratti di una risposta controproducente. Malgrado l'enfasi data dai media al possibile rinascimento nucleare, la percentuale di elettricità nucleare è destinata a ridursi, secondo la Iea, dal 15 al 9% entro il 2030 a causa della chiusura delle vecchie centrali".

Il ministro parla però di impianti di nuova generazione.
"Se effettivamente i reattori di quarta generazione

daranno i risultati sperati in termine di riduzione dei costi e dei rischi, il nucleare potrebbe dare un contributo più significativo, ma solo nei decenni successivi".

Scajola, tra gli applausi di Confindustria, ne ha parlato invece come di una soluzione attuale.
"Resto dell'avviso che in Italia, anche in presenza di un improbabile consenso politico e sociale, la produzione non potrebbe iniziare prima del 2020, come del resto ammette la stessa Edison fissando la data al 2019. In effetti, il principale nemico dell'energia atomica non sono gli ambientalisti ma la liberalizzazione dei mercati elettrici. In una realtà concorrenziale, l'incertezza sui costi, sui tempi di costruzione e sulle dinamiche della domanda penalizzano fortemente questa tecnologia. Secondo un recente studio Usa condiviso dall'industria atomica (il Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding) l'elettricità di una nuova centrale nucleare è destinata a costare il doppio (8-11 centesimi di dollaro per kWh) rispetto alla media.

Non a caso la gara per la costruzione di nuove centrali indetta da un nuclearista convinto come Bush è andata deserta fino a quando l'amministrazione non ha introdotto un incentivo di 1,8 centesimi di dollaro al chilowattora, la stessa cifra prevista per l'eolico. Sostenere che il ritorno al nucleare riduce la bolletta è falso, questo lo ammettono anche sostenitori "seri" dell'atomo come Clò. In Europa l'impianto in costruzione in Finlandia è in ritardo di due anni e presenta extracosti per 1,5 miliardi di euro, tanto che la Siemens, fornitrice della tecnologia, nel 2008 ha perso in Borsa un terzo del suo valore. In sostanza, c'è un conflitto insanabile tra l'imperante mercato liberalizzato dell'energia e la rinascita del nucleare".

Eppure continuiamo a guardare con una certa invidia alla Francia.
"La situazione è diversa in presenza di un forte ruolo dello Stato, ma Scajola non ha precisato se pensa ad aiuti del Tesoro. Ci sono infatti Paesi in cui il nucleare può essere considerato un successo come la Francia appunto, anche se un bilancio completo potrà essere effettuato solo tra qualche decina - o meglio migliaia - di anni. E altri, invece, in cui il ricordo è negativo, come gli Usa dove aziende fallite e decine di miliardi di dollari buttati al vento ne fanno il più grande disastro industriale del Paese, senza parlare della Russia, dove l'incidente di Chernobyl ha causato significativi danni sanitari ed economici".

Scajola ha garantito che si terrà conto della questione sicurezza.
"Ma nessuno dei problemi connessi con il nucleare - sicurezza, scorie, proliferazione - è stato ancora risolto. A 55 anni dall'inizio dell'avventura nucleare i problemi aperti sono ancora molti. I lavori per il deposito di Yucca Mountain negli Usa continuano a slittare nel tempo e nessun paese ha attivato un cimitero definitivo per le scorie. Lo smantellamento delle centrali esistenti è un'altra incognita. Le previsioni di costo della chiusura del ciclo nucleare nel Regno Unito sono in continua crescita e l'ultima stima è di 100 miliardi di euro".

Ma se il risultato è la possibilità di avere energia ad emissioni zero a tempo indeterminato si tratta di rischi e costi che si potrebbe decidere di voler correre.
"In realtà un tema generalmente sottovalutato riguarda proprio la disponibilità di materiale fissile. In effetti negli anni scorsi si era in presenza di una sovrabbondanza di uranio anche per l'utilizzo del materiale proveniente dal programma di disarmo nucleare. Questa situazione è destinata a cambiare e le difficoltà ad aprire nuove miniere stanno già facendo lievitare il prezzo, sestuplicato negli ultimi 5 anni.

[Syntax error System]

Sempre più geniali.

Finalmente....

Per una volta plaudo a Berlusconi! Diamine era ora

[Medsim]

Nuclear Power in Italy

(May 2008)

* Italy has had four operating nuclear power reactors but shut the last two down following the Chernobyl accident.
* Over 10% of its electricity is now from nuclear power - all imported.
* Revival of nuclear power generation is under consideration.

Electricity consumption in Italy in 2004 was 322 billion kWh, giving per capita consumption of 5542 kWh/yr.

In 2004 local production from 76 GWe of plant was 300 billion kWh gross, 42% from gas, 26% from oil, 15% from coal and 13% from hydro. Imports of 45.6 billion kWh (efectively, some 16% of its needs) are required, mostly nuclear power from France. This is equivalent to output from about 6.5 GWe of capacity at 80%.

ENEL (originally Italian Electricity Generation Board) is responsible for electricity production and transmission. In 1992 it became ENEL SpA, a joint stock company, and in 1999 40% of its shares went public. Also generating subsidiaries were formed and sold off with the aim of limiting ENEL's share of the market to 50%. Due to the high reliance on oil and gas, as well as imports, Italy's electricity prices are 45% above EU average.

Italy today is now the only G8 country without its own nuclear power, and is the world's largest net importer of electricity.

In May 2008 the new centre-right prime minister Silvio Berlusconi said that nuclear power generation is absolutely necessary for the country's development. "Nuclear power, with all the necessary precautions, is today an indispensable option not just for guaranteeing the energy needed for future development but for safeguarding the environment we live in," he told Italy's upper house of parliament.

Nuclear industry development

Italy was a pioneer of civil nuclear power and in 1946 established the first scientific body to pursue this. In 1952 it established an agency to develop and promote nuclear power, and this was reorganised in 1960 to become CNEN (National committee for nuclear energy).

Construction of the first civil reactor - a British Magnox unit - began in 1958, and the following year construction of the first GE boiling water reactor commenced. In 1961 the first Westinghouse pressurised water reactor began building.

Italy's power reactors
Reactors Model Net MWe Power
Latina GCR 153 1963-87
Garigliano BWR 150 1964-82
Trino Vercellese PWR 260 1964-90
Caorso BWR 860 1978-90
Montalto di Castro 1 & 2 BWR 982 each -
Total operated (4) 1423 MWe

In 1966 ENEL announced an ambitious program of nuclear plant construction, aiming for 12,000 MWe by 1980. Following this, ANSALDO was set up to supply nuclear components, both local and imported.

In 1967 CNEN and ENEL started developing an Italian version of the Candu reactor, with heavy water moderation but light water cooling, called CIRENE. In 1972 an order was placed with ANSALDO to build a 40 MWe prototype, but this was not finished until 1988 due to technical problems.

In 1973 ENEL took a 33% share of the Super Phenix fast breeder reactor being built in France.

Following a referendum in November 1987, provoked by the Chernobyl accident 18 months earlier, work on the nuclear program was largely stopped. In 1988 the government resolved to halt all nuclear construction, shut the remaining reactors and decommission them from 1990. As well as the operating plants, two new nuclear BWR plants were almost complete and six locally-designed PWR plants were planned. ENEA (formerly CNEN) also closed various fuel cycle facilities.

Despite its previously high level of activity and expertise, Italy remained largely inactive in nuclear energy for 15 years.

In 1999 SOGIN was set up to take over all ENEL's and ENEA's nuclear assets and be responsible for decommissioning them. It was also to take responsibility for all nuclear wastes.

In 2004 a new Energy Law opened up the possibility of joint venture with foreign companies in relation to nuclear power plants and importing electricity from them.

This resulted from a clear change in public opinion, especially among younger people favouring nuclear power for Italy.

In 2005 Electricité de France and ENEL signed a memorandum of understanding to give ENEL some 200 MWe from the new Flamanville-3 EPR nuclear reactor (1650 MWe) in France, and potentially another 1000 MWe or so from the next five such units built. As well as the 12.5% share, ENEL was also to be involved in design, construction and operation of the plants, which would enhance Italy's power security and improve its economics. A major benefit would be in rebuilding Italy's nuclear skills and competence. However, early in 2007 EdF backed away from this agreement and said it would build Flamanville 3 on its own and take all the output. Nevertheless, in November 2007 an agreement was signed confirming the 12.5% ENEL investment in Flamanville - expected to cost EUR 450 million - plus the same share of another five such plants. The agreement also gives EdF an option to participate in construction and operation of future ENEL nuclear power plants in Italy or elsewhere in Europe and the Mediterranean.

In 2004 ENEL bought 66% of Slovenske Electrarne (SE) with its four VVER 440/V213 Bohunice and Mochovce reactors there. ENEL's subsequent investment plan approved in 2005 involves EUR 1.88 billion investment to increase SE generating capacity, including EUR 1.6 billion for completion of Mochovce units 3 & 4 - 942 MWe gross - by 2011-12.

In October 2007 Italy became the 17th member of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) which is developing new nuclear fuel cycle technologies to improve proliferation resistance while increasing recycling and reducing wastes.

In 2008 Energy Lab, described as a think tank and involving major utilities, began a feasibility study on building four new nuclear power plants in Italy.

Fuel cycle

In 1973 Italy joined the Eurodif consortium building a large diffusion enrichment plant at Marcoule in France. AGIP Nucleare and CNEN were in charge of enriched uranium supplies.

In 1972 ANSALDO in joint venture with GE completed a BWR fuel fabrication plant to supply both Italy and a Swiss plant. This is being decommissioned by SOGIN.

There was also a pilot reprocessing plant for Magnox fuel.

Radioactive Waste Management

In the mid 1990s ENEL terminated nuclear fuel reprocessing and moved to dry cask storage for used fuel from light water reactors.

Today SOGIN is responsible for nuclear and radioactive wastes, and reactor and fuel cycle decommissioning. Some 290 tonnes of used fuel is in dry storage, and overall 5500 cubic meters of radioactive wastes are stored.

In November 2006 a bilateral French - Italian agreement cleared the way for SOGIN to sign a contract with Areva NC for reprocessing 235 tonnes of used fuel now in storage. It is to be shipped to La Hague between 2007 and 2015 and the wastes are to be returned after 2020.

Latina's Magnox spent fuel - about 1400 tonnes in total - was shipped to UK for reprocessing at Sellafield.

All reactors are now defuelled and are in Safstor stage of decommissioning. The total cost of this is estimated at EUR 2.6 billion, plus EUR 0.86 billion for fuel cycle facilities. This is funded by a levy on electricity sales.

A national repository for wastes is envisaged.

R&D

The leading agency for applied nuclear research is ENEA. While most R&D is focused on decommissioning and wastes, basic research continues in order to maintain the nuclear option in the light of climate change concerns.

Several research reactors are operating, including AGN Constanza (since 1960), Uni of Pavia's LENA Triga II (250 kW, since 1965), ENEA's Tapiro (5 kW, since 1971), ENEA's Triga RC-1 (1 MW, since 1960) and a subcritical assembly.

Ansaldo Nucleare, which is building Cernavoda 2 in Romania, is also involved with international R&D on new reactor systems. These include IRIS (with Westinghouse), Euratom projects, and a Generation IV design: ELSY - the European Lead-cooled SYstem, with integral steam generators.

Regulation and safety

In 1964 CNEN was confirmed as the regulatory body for Italy's nuclear power, using safety criteria from UK and USA. It was later split into ENEA - responsible for research and promotion of nuclear energy, and ENEA/DISP as the independent regulatory body. This then became APAT, the Agency for Environmental Protection & Technical Services, as the regulatory body in charge of safety and licensing.

Non-proliferation

Italy is party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) since 1975 as a non-nuclear weapons state. It is a member of both Euratom and the Nuclear Suppliers' Group. In 1998 it signed the Additional Protocol in relation to its safeguards agreements with the IAEA.

References:
OECD/IEA Electricity Information 2004.
IAEA 2003, Country Nuclear Power Profiles.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf101.html

[PoliticalBoy]

infatti il nucleare non si farà.dovranno mandare i carri armati a sparare sulle popolazioni locali

potrebbe essere.. scherzi a parte..

l'importante è fare le centrali..
grande scajola!!!

[Metapapero]

Nuclear Power in Italy

(May 2008)

* Italy has had four operating nuclear power reactors but shut the last two down following the Chernobyl accident.
* Over 10% of its electricity is now from nuclear power - all imported.
* Revival of nuclear power generation is under consideration.

Electricity consumption in Italy in 2004 was 322 billion kWh, giving per capita consumption of 5542 kWh/yr.

In 2004 local production from 76 GWe of plant was 300 billion kWh gross, 42% from gas, 26% from oil, 15% from coal and 13% from hydro. Imports of 45.6 billion kWh (efectively, some 16% of its needs) are required, mostly nuclear power from France. This is equivalent to output from about 6.5 GWe of capacity at 80%.

ENEL (originally Italian Electricity Generation Board) is responsible for electricity production and transmission. In 1992 it became ENEL SpA, a joint stock company, and in 1999 40% of its shares went public. Also generating subsidiaries were formed and sold off with the aim of limiting ENEL's share of the market to 50%. Due to the high reliance on oil and gas, as well as imports, Italy's electricity prices are 45% above EU average.

Italy today is now the only G8 country without its own nuclear power, and is the world's largest net importer of electricity.

In May 2008 the new centre-right prime minister Silvio Berlusconi said that nuclear power generation is absolutely necessary for the country's development. "Nuclear power, with all the necessary precautions, is today an indispensable option not just for guaranteeing the energy needed for future development but for safeguarding the environment we live in," he told Italy's upper house of parliament.

Nuclear industry development

Italy was a pioneer of civil nuclear power and in 1946 established the first scientific body to pursue this. In 1952 it established an agency to develop and promote nuclear power, and this was reorganised in 1960 to become CNEN (National committee for nuclear energy).

Construction of the first civil reactor - a British Magnox unit - began in 1958, and the following year construction of the first GE boiling water reactor commenced. In 1961 the first Westinghouse pressurised water reactor began building.

Italy's power reactors
Reactors Model Net MWe Power
Latina GCR 153 1963-87
Garigliano BWR 150 1964-82
Trino Vercellese PWR 260 1964-90
Caorso BWR 860 1978-90
Montalto di Castro 1 & 2 BWR 982 each -
Total operated (4) 1423 MWe

In 1966 ENEL announced an ambitious program of nuclear plant construction, aiming for 12,000 MWe by 1980. Following this, ANSALDO was set up to supply nuclear components, both local and imported.

In 1967 CNEN and ENEL started developing an Italian version of the Candu reactor, with heavy water moderation but light water cooling, called CIRENE. In 1972 an order was placed with ANSALDO to build a 40 MWe prototype, but this was not finished until 1988 due to technical problems.

In 1973 ENEL took a 33% share of the Super Phenix fast breeder reactor being built in France.

Following a referendum in November 1987, provoked by the Chernobyl accident 18 months earlier, work on the nuclear program was largely stopped. In 1988 the government resolved to halt all nuclear construction, shut the remaining reactors and decommission them from 1990. As well as the operating plants, two new nuclear BWR plants were almost complete and six locally-designed PWR plants were planned. ENEA (formerly CNEN) also closed various fuel cycle facilities.

Despite its previously high level of activity and expertise, Italy remained largely inactive in nuclear energy for 15 years.

In 1999 SOGIN was set up to take over all ENEL's and ENEA's nuclear assets and be responsible for decommissioning them. It was also to take responsibility for all nuclear wastes.

In 2004 a new Energy Law opened up the possibility of joint venture with foreign companies in relation to nuclear power plants and importing electricity from them.

This resulted from a clear change in public opinion, especially among younger people favouring nuclear power for Italy.

In 2005 Electricité de France and ENEL signed a memorandum of understanding to give ENEL some 200 MWe from the new Flamanville-3 EPR nuclear reactor (1650 MWe) in France, and potentially another 1000 MWe or so from the next five such units built. As well as the 12.5% share, ENEL was also to be involved in design, construction and operation of the plants, which would enhance Italy's power security and improve its economics. A major benefit would be in rebuilding Italy's nuclear skills and competence. However, early in 2007 EdF backed away from this agreement and said it would build Flamanville 3 on its own and take all the output. Nevertheless, in November 2007 an agreement was signed confirming the 12.5% ENEL investment in Flamanville - expected to cost EUR 450 million - plus the same share of another five such plants. The agreement also gives EdF an option to participate in construction and operation of future ENEL nuclear power plants in Italy or elsewhere in Europe and the Mediterranean.

In 2004 ENEL bought 66% of Slovenske Electrarne (SE) with its four VVER 440/V213 Bohunice and Mochovce reactors there. ENEL's subsequent investment plan approved in 2005 involves EUR 1.88 billion investment to increase SE generating capacity, including EUR 1.6 billion for completion of Mochovce units 3 & 4 - 942 MWe gross - by 2011-12.

In October 2007 Italy became the 17th member of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) which is developing new nuclear fuel cycle technologies to improve proliferation resistance while increasing recycling and reducing wastes.

In 2008 Energy Lab, described as a think tank and involving major utilities, began a feasibility study on building four new nuclear power plants in Italy.

Fuel cycle

In 1973 Italy joined the Eurodif consortium building a large diffusion enrichment plant at Marcoule in France. AGIP Nucleare and CNEN were in charge of enriched uranium supplies.

In 1972 ANSALDO in joint venture with GE completed a BWR fuel fabrication plant to supply both Italy and a Swiss plant. This is being decommissioned by SOGIN.

There was also a pilot reprocessing plant for Magnox fuel.

Radioactive Waste Management

In the mid 1990s ENEL terminated nuclear fuel reprocessing and moved to dry cask storage for used fuel from light water reactors.

Today SOGIN is responsible for nuclear and radioactive wastes, and reactor and fuel cycle decommissioning. Some 290 tonnes of used fuel is in dry storage, and overall 5500 cubic meters of radioactive wastes are stored.

In November 2006 a bilateral French - Italian agreement cleared the way for SOGIN to sign a contract with Areva NC for reprocessing 235 tonnes of used fuel now in storage. It is to be shipped to La Hague between 2007 and 2015 and the wastes are to be returned after 2020.

Latina's Magnox spent fuel - about 1400 tonnes in total - was shipped to UK for reprocessing at Sellafield.

All reactors are now defuelled and are in Safstor stage of decommissioning. The total cost of this is estimated at EUR 2.6 billion, plus EUR 0.86 billion for fuel cycle facilities. This is funded by a levy on electricity sales.

A national repository for wastes is envisaged.

R&D

The leading agency for applied nuclear research is ENEA. While most R&D is focused on decommissioning and wastes, basic research continues in order to maintain the nuclear option in the light of climate change concerns.

Several research reactors are operating, including AGN Constanza (since 1960), Uni of Pavia's LENA Triga II (250 kW, since 1965), ENEA's Tapiro (5 kW, since 1971), ENEA's Triga RC-1 (1 MW, since 1960) and a subcritical assembly.

Ansaldo Nucleare, which is building Cernavoda 2 in Romania, is also involved with international R&D on new reactor systems. These include IRIS (with Westinghouse), Euratom projects, and a Generation IV design: ELSY - the European Lead-cooled SYstem, with integral steam generators.

Regulation and safety

In 1964 CNEN was confirmed as the regulatory body for Italy's nuclear power, using safety criteria from UK and USA. It was later split into ENEA - responsible for research and promotion of nuclear energy, and ENEA/DISP as the independent regulatory body. This then became APAT, the Agency for Environmental Protection & Technical Services, as the regulatory body in charge of safety and licensing.

Non-proliferation

Italy is party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) since 1975 as a non-nuclear weapons state. It is a member of both Euratom and the Nuclear Suppliers' Group. In 1998 it signed the Additional Protocol in relation to its safeguards agreements with the IAEA.

References:
OECD/IEA Electricity Information 2004.
IAEA 2003, Country Nuclear Power Profiles.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf101.html

Dunque a meta' del passato gobierno Berlusconi si parlava di revival del nucleare secondo la IAEA, ora dopo nona aver fatto nulla per 5 anni, tac!, d'incanto ci si mette a costruire centrali...

Banana dentro...

[PoliticalBoy]

Dunque a meta' del passato gobierno Berlusconi si parlava di revival del nucleare secondo la IAEA, ora dopo nona aver fatto nulla per 5 anni, tac!, d'incanto ci si mette a costruire centrali...

Banana dentro...

guarda che l'enel si è sempre tenuta aggiornata sulle nuove tecnologie nucleari..

dovresti chiedere a loro se sì oppure no (e loro sono pronti)
gli unici a essere rimasti indietro sono i verdi e quelli che pensano ancora alle centrali nucleari come rischio e non come risorsa..

[Zdenek]

Si continua a parlare per il gusto di esserci.
Qualcuno ha nominato il Prof. Bardi.

Come il cacio sui maccheroni:

[...] dedicato alle infinite fesserie sul cambiamento climatico profferite da un gran numero di persone di scarsa competenza ma di robuste doti sproloquiatorie. Una fesseria ogni tanto, la puoi ignorare. Alle volte, quando viene detta con grande insistenza, ti fa arrabbiare. Ma vederne tante tutte insieme come Caserini con pazienza raccoglie ti da un quadro allo stesso tempo esilarante e sconfortante della situazione. Particolarmente gustose sono le note sulle "Zichicche"e sul "Clima di Battaglia". Viene da dire, veramente, ma in che mani siamo messi?

Commento che ben si adatta alle posizioni espresse da molti qui.
Si riferisce, tuttavia, alla presentazione che domani si terrà a Firenze del libro "A qualcuno piace caldo".

[Metapapero]

guarda che l'enel si è sempre tenuta aggiornata sulle nuove tecnologie nucleari..

dovresti chiedere a loro se sì oppure no (e loro sono pronti)
gli unici a essere rimasti indietro sono i verdi e quelli che pensano ancora alle centrali nucleari come rischio e non come risorsa..

gente come il MIT?

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

[Giordi]

gente come il MIT?

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

...quando si cita uno studio così autorevole sarebbe
onesto rendereconto delle condizioni al contorno di quello studio,
che in quel caso, 1)per la tecnologia dei cicli combinati è un prezzo del gas ritenuto "alto"
pari a 6,7 $ per migliaia di piedi cubi (Mcf), quando già oggi siamo a più
di 10 $/MBtu (un Mcf corrisdponde grossolanamente ad un MBtu), faccio
notare che durante la crisi di Katrina raggiungemmo i 15-20 $/MBtu. Il prezzo
industriale del gas in Italia che è attrno ai 350 euro per 1000 mc
corrisponde a più di 9 euro per MBtu (euro o dollari, assumendo per
semplicità pure la parità nel 2003 quando lo studio fu scritto); 2) per il
carbone è un prezzo del combustibile di 1,2 $/MBtu, che probabilmente è un
valore corretto per la situazione americana (gli Usa hanno enorme riserve di
carbone, noi no), ma non è affatto il prezzo di mercato attuale che sta
andando verso i 130-140 $/tonn che corrisponde a più di 5 $/MBtu, più di 4
volte di quanto assunto dal Mit
E' importante osservare questi rincari nei prezzi dei combustibili perchè,
come noto, il costo del kWh da termoelettrico è fortemente dipendente dal
prezzo del combustibile usato, a differenza del nucleare per il quale la
dipendenza è molto meno marcata
http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/
http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/com...rgyprices.html
http://www.globalcoal.com/

- contrariamente a quanto fa intendere Maugeri, il costo del kWh nucleare
del Mit prende in considerazioni TUTTI i costi legati al ciclo del
combustibile nucleare, compresi smaltimento delle scorie, smantellamento
degli impianti a fine vita, assicurazione e ammortamento del capitale nonchè
costi di O&M, per cui tutto il panegerico sugli "enormi" costi dello
smantellamento degli impianti dopo aver citato lo studio del mit, che lascia
intendere che a quei costi bisogna aggiungere altri dovuti a scorie +
smantellamento, è totalmente sbagliato e fuorvinate
- i 50 $ per tonn di "carbon tax" nello studio del mit sono riferiti al solo
carbonio, non alla
CO2, c'è un rapporto di 44 a 12 tra CO2 e carbonio, quindi quei 50 tonn/C
corrispondono a circa 14 $ o euro (assumiamo pure la parità) per tonn di
CO2, le previsioni sono invece che pagheremo per kyoto non meno di 20 euro
per tonn di CO2 emessa, per cui quei 50 $/tonn sono meno di quanto si possa
pensare (ad ogni modo con i prezzi attuali "corretti" dei combustibili,
secondo le assunzioni del mit il nucleare dovrebbe essere più economico di
gas e carbone anche senza alcuna carbon tax, dico "dovrebbe" perchè ci sono
molte incertezze sul costo per kW di impianto, i 2000 $/kW per il nucleare
non possono essere più presi come serio riferimento)
Ad ogni modo una tassa di 20 euro per tonn CO2 aumenta di 0,8 centesimi e di
almeno 1,6 centesimi per kWh il costo da gas e carbone, rispettivamente
- a causa dei rincari delle principali commodities (ferro, acciaio, ecc.),
il costo di costruzione a carbone e gas è aumentato del 50% e fino al 100%,
in pratica per il carbone praticamente più del doppio di quanto affermato
nello studio del Mit.
http://www.platts.com/Coal/News/6784...energybulletin
" Capital costs associated with a new coal plant have "nearly
doubled" in the past two years to "as much as $2,400-$2,900/kW,"
Ciò vale ovviamente anche per il nucleare, l' ultimo EPR in costruzione in
Finlandia è costato finora dopo vari ritardi 2500 euro per kW, un valore
molto diverso da quello indicato dal Mit (anche assumendo la parità tra E e
$)

tratto da: http://www.nntp.it/discussioni-energ...ucleare-5.html