Nuclear Power, Earthquakes and Japanese. Finally my web 
The recent earthquake in Japan has only to show that all technology in the world is of little use when nature breaks out and shows us in full force and brutality. The apparent safety of nuclear plants Nipponese has been questioned by not supporting some of them the invitation, the builders and defenders boasted ensuring that they were able to bear. Although it is a situation of great gravity, the truly alarming and shocking, is that this has not happened in the third world, but in the country with the highest level of technology at the global level, and staff characterized by the spirit and hardworking perfectionist characteristic of the Japanese, which could qualify them as better controlled nuclear plants worldwide.
And this has happened when in old Europe (and therefore in Spain) was reopening the debate on nuclear power. But see the profile of the debate, pitting supporters and detractors of this type of energy.
Those in favor argue that it is basically clean energy to avoid CO2 emissions, is cheap compared with other sources ensures a constant energy supply, does not depend on the outside and fuel besides being relatively inexpensive, is not subject to price fluctuations as other oil. However
behind these arguments are simple ure to remove it completely:
When it says is a "clean energy" is always used oil to establish the comparison, while avoiding CO2 emissions. But if we consider that the main cause of those emissions is none other than road transport (which causes 35% of them), and to a lesser extent on the air (18%) can do little to solve the nuclear CO2 problem, we, while not invent vehicles and aircraft operating at nuclear power base. It ignores the fact that uranium production carries high CO2 emissions, both in the process of extraction, processing and transport. And just the thing here, because when he described nuclear power "clean" it seems that it wants to present as something pure, when there is nothing further from reality, as it generates the usual residuals for a period of several thousand years. Let alone accidents, as occurred in Japan, which is producing deadly pollution will desert an area of \u200b\u200bhundreds of square kilometers, in which no one knows when one enters, the moment the villages near Chernobyl (25 years later) remain closed indefinitely. Cities and ghost towns. Thousands of displaced people who fled with nothing, leaving everything: homes, furniture, furniture, memories ...
image Chernobyl accident. 
greatest danger zone for people following the Chernobyl accident. As can be seen the area is more extensive than it might seem. 
The remains of the accident: a dead zone indefinitely. 
saying that cheap energy is being compared again with oil, and the comparison is as simple as putting on one side the price of nuclear fuel and other the oil needed to produce one kilowatt of electricity. What does not fit in this comparison is the cost of construction of both types of plant: less than 500 million Euros for a combined cycle power plant (gas based) and a little more for a fuel-based, front to 5,200 million Euros for a nuclear type. That price must be reflected in total kilowatt, if we want the comparison is valid. But is not the only thing to pass, as also other issues such as maintenance costs or security, and of course, the management of waste. They say
ensures constant power supply. Following the nuclear interests, this make comparison with a photovoltaic or solar thermal energy which in theory provides only during daylight hours, because the other plants also can produce consistently. But even in the solar thermal is solving the problem by replacing the melted oil industrial salts, which keep the heat at night and allow a flow of energy production at night close to having during the day.
also said that nuclear power does not make us dependent on both the exterior and the oil. Another falsehood. Uranium mines in our country are empty and closed for years, and producers worldwide are Canadian (33%), Australia (24%), Kazakhstan (10%), Russia (10%), Nigeria (10%), Namibia (6%), Uzbekistan (5%), and the rest divided between the United States, Ukraine , South Africa and China (2%). To this must be added that the uranium can be used as it is extracted from nature, but requires a complicated process of transformation that is basically in the hands of 4 countries worldwide: United States, France, Russia and China. Clearly, in our case the direct provider is France, a neighboring country and member of the European Union, but not having its own production, need to import these countries, which are nothing close, and in some cases are exposed to possible riots. Then there is the issue of transportation from the neighboring country to the English plants, which is done by boat to Cadiz and from there by road: a deadly cargo crossing our shores and roads every so often. We
is what it is a cheap fuel. Cheap compared to what? "Again with the oil? "Renewable energies? The price of uranium has not stopped rising since 1980, only in the last year has gone up more than 30%, because production will not stop decline since the eighties. And above all and most importantly: cheap because the price is exclusively handled the purchase, and no takes into account the management of the spent fuel once, ie debris. What would be your final price if it included the management of waste? Simply incalculable. Evolution
global uranium production and its price. 
Reactor No. 3 of the Fukushima Nuclear Power Station after an explosion. 
And the time to talk about waste. These comprise both the nuclear fuel itself once exhausted, as those components that need replacement due to wear and had contact with it.
Company In Spain ENRESA public (mostly funded with our tax dollars) is responsible for all radioactive waste in our country. Ojo, of all: those that occur in hospitals, research centers and nuclear. That is, while the management and operation of nuclear plants is privately owned, according to our legislation, administers resíudos ENRESA necessarily be obliged companies owning nuclear power plants to pay an amount, set at the BOE, for public company financing. In short: private companies that own the English plants assume the direct costs of fuel purchase nuclear reactor operation, general plant maintenance and internal security as well as a portion of the storage of waste, but the rest is paid by all. The most important issue is that most hazardous waste, the high life as plutonium, remain in the pools of the nuclear plants themselves, and when they stop working in our country (most should already have) the waste will remain there (or wherever), and must continue to manage them, but then the companies that own power plants have no obligation to continue making its contribution, so we'll be all españolitos which our taxes pay the full bill ENRESA. In fact, the residue from the dismantling of Vandellos-I (first plant dismantled in Spain), which are temporarily in France for reprocessing (for a hefty price as expected), this year will return to our country, and even with a volume reduced to 100 drums will have to save somewhere. Let's hope in "The Cabril", the only place authorized in Spain for the storage of these materials, not the Wolf Mine (Extremadura), where without any control have been deposited with the 577 drums from the dismantling of the reactor experimental nuclear the former CIEMAT (http://elmineraldigital.blogspot.com/2009/04/la-mina-lobo-la-haba-badajoz-html). And if we consider that some of these residues have an average life of 24,000 years, a great heritage we will leave to our children.
attempts to cool a reactor in Fukushima by pouring sea water from helicopters. The operation has been compared to trying to extinguish a forest fire with a jug. Without a radiological hazard to the crew of the aircraft.
As we see, nuclear energy has a very high cost. For starters, building involves an atomic plant, as we have seen, a truly chilling investment that pays only after many years, but it also has a catch: the cost is related only to the construction, and therefore does not include maintenance and much less waste management. And along with the costs, what about the corresponding security: A nuclear power plant requires a cost of 130 million euros per year on maintenance, including private security systems, but not public (mass media materials, but especially human) the government makes available to nuclear plants. It has always been thought of as extreme problems or situations of war of terrorism, but now we see that a natural disaster may be even more dangerous both by the failure of his prediction as the devastation it can cause. We hardly have the problem in Japan caused by a Tsunami, but we must remember that we are in a seismic zone, and that all English plants are cooled with water from reservoirs whose walls hardly resist an earthquake measuring 7. Without water for cooling, we'd be in the same case in Japan.
early twentieth century human technology and boasted of building "unsinkable ship." But it had to happen to the Titanic tragedy nobody in their right mind would dare (more than a century later) to qualify for such a vessel. Until now, nuclear power advocates describe it as very secure, although there have been quite a few accidents, some of them quite serious, claiming more lives than even the sinking of the Titanic, but the times seem to have learned to assume the mass misery as inevitable and inherent to the use of technology.
Almost all problems that can cause the nuclear plants could be included (and indeed are) within those risks that our society (or at least part of it) is willing to assume a change in this case to have abundant energy. But it is obvious that nuclear waste can not be included in this drawer. Mortgage life and health of future generations in exchange for welfare now, or has always said "bread for today, hunger tomorrow can no longer be a valid way of thinking.
When we try to sell it as a source of nuclear energy "necessary", always omit the waste issue, knowing that while the rest of arguments may have supporters or detractors, the waste does not allow comparison. In his day were thrown into the sea (many of them off the Galician coast) on the grounds that this was a safe place, and supposedly there are. Then he spoke of deep geological repositories for long-lasting, and more recently the temporary storage Until when? If there has been a disgrace as Fukushima in Japan due to an earthquake, can not something similar happen with long-term storage? Everything seems safe until it is not. And then what would we do and especially what would the inhabitants of the surrounding areas?
But who is behind the promotion of the nuclear industry? So far the former USSR and China produced its own reactors and assistive technology, but most of the world were central manufactured by American companies: Whestinghouse, American Elenctric, American Atomic ... However, even though those companies are of American nationality are Japanese financial groups which account for most of the shares of listed companies, the country while Japan has started the construction of nuclear reactors. Mitsubishi Heavy is one of them, and Thoshiba Corp puts the finishing touches to the design of the 4S reactor Thoshiba with requirements for monitoring and maintenance lower than today, and aimed primarily at emerging markets. Like all good Japanese, always lowering costs.
When we talk about emerging countries we are talking more At about the third world countries in Africa, South America and Asia, where public opinion counts for little or nothing and where the cultural level is low enough to fool people with the supposed benefits of nuclear energy. So here comes the greed of some.
And now all the technology, craftsmanship, order, competition and industrial prestige Japanese have come down, and ask for help to the world to control a situation that clearly is uncontrollable. Because the radiation will continue rising and diluting the area and where the wind takes you, which for the most part will be the Pacific Ocean. Again the sea swallows it all. ! Up when! And whatever happens in the end we will know what they tell you.
not forget that Japan, the land of technology, order, and progress, characterized by the harmony of their environment, has focused in recent decades to the depletion of natural resources of half the world: tropical forests razed to build their beautiful wooden houses, intensive fishing has come to the depletion of species such as bluefin tuna, some sharks, and remember his "scientific whale fishing, mining brutal in third world countries ... all trash and shit well away from their pristine homes.
is not the time of picking on those who have experienced similar Unfortunately, and therefore these words are respect, support and encouragement to the Japanese to get by, as they did in the past, but also to ask them to learn the lesson and think again about how they act at the global level.
An earthquake, a terrorist attack, a wastage of material or human error becomes the same, and therefore no society should bear the risk of nuclear industry, whose impact is beyond us all. It's time to learn the lesson and go setting the gradual closure of all our nuclear power plants. First closing, and then see what is done with waste. When we got home and we open a tap is flooding our home, we would never begin to collect the water leaving the tap running, the first thing is close, and then collect the water. For in this case the same: the first closing. People go to unemployment, of course, but everyone knew the duration of the plants as these were built, trying to extend that time is to increase the risk beyond what is necessary, and it argues that there has been serious failures or accidents seems laughable. ! Is you have to wait for a major accident for the more convinced lose their confidence in all the alleged nuclear safety!
And if one of these days someone finds the formula to make nuclear waste harmless, since then we can talk about nuclear development. Until then it makes sense to the closure and dismantling of all the plants.
