nucleară este prima opţiune la care se gândesc oamenii când e
vorba de alternative
Despre opţiunile nucleare
produc aproape 20% din electicitatea consumată în lume. Electricitatea reprezintă 16% din energia consumată mondial.
Adică nuclearul produce 3,2% din energia globală consumată.
Această adresă este a site-ului guvernamental "Energy
Information Administration" un fel de Ministerul informaţiilor
energetice şi aparţine de DoE -
"Department of Energy" adică ministerul energiei SUA. Traducere liberă -
Departamentul de analiză statistică al Ministerului Energiei. Despre opţiunile nucleare la capitolul "producţie
1Capacitatea centralelor nucleare va creşte modest.
2 Nici o centrală nucleară nouă nu va devenii operaţională între 2002 şi
cunoscute sau nu (vezi autostrada Bechtal) România a
semnat actele cu americanii (iulie 2004) pentru cea de a treia unitate
de producţie de la Cernavodă. Având în vedere că americanii nu au mai
construit nici o centrală nucleară la
ei acasă în ultimii 30
de ani şi nu au de gând
să construiască nici una încă 20 de ani, că germanii au
început să-şi închidă definitiv centralele nucleare (până în 2030 le
închid pe toate 19), vă rog să vă răspundeţi singuri
la întrebările pe care tocmai vi le-aţi pus. Eu vă spun doar că motivul
principal este acelaşi ca şi în cazul petrolului şi a gazului natural.
Nu mai e destul uraniu pe planetă. Uraniu 235 adică. Despre uraniu 238 şi plutoniu
239 ceva mai jos.
Fapt este că arderea atomilor
fisionabili (reactoarele de ardere) face din energia nucleară o soluţie
de scurtă durată. ("Energy in a finite world" IIASA, Wolf Hafele -
Cambridge 1981) Uraniul natural (235) este mai puţin abundent pe planetă decât
petrolul dacă e să comparăm echivalent energetic. Iar un reactor nuclear
foloseşte doar 3-4 % din combustibil, restul se aruncă. În principiu un
reactor regenerator (FBR) ar trebuii să folosească
"gunoiul" reactoarelor obişnuite şi sa-l transforme înapoi în
combustibil utilizabil.( uraniu 238). Dar FBR-urile NU funcţionează.
Lucrurile sunt simple aici. Nu vă faceţi prea multe
speranţe. Combustibilul primordial, uraniu natural (U238) este
greu de găsit şi de extras. Se poate extrage din mai multe locuri, inclusiv din apa
mării, dar dată fiind concentraţia infimă nu este o soluţie reală.
Foarte pe scurt există două metode importante:
Reactoarele de ardere ( apă uşoară, apă grea, gaz,
Reactoarele regeneratoare ( în stadiul de cercetare
"avansată" de 55 de ani).
Nuclear fission. There are two isotopes of
uranium, uranium-235 and uranium-238. Only uranium-235 is fissionable,
and it is only .7 percent of all uranium. The 99.3 percent which is
uranium-238 is not fissionable, but uranium-235 can be used to produce a
new element from uranium-238, plutonium-239, which is fissionable.
Although uranium in both forms is a finite resource, converting
uranium-238 to plutonium-239 (a process called "breeding") could
possibly extend our use of uranium for power by perhaps 100 times
The end product of nuclear fission is electricity.
How to use electricity to efficiently replace oil (gasoline, diesel,
kerosene) in the more than 700 million vehicles worldwide has not yet
been satisfactorily solved. There are severe limitations of the storage
batteries involved. For example, a gallon of gasoline weighing about 8
pounds has the same energy as one ton of conventional lead-acid storage
batteries. Fifteen gallons of gasoline in a car's tank are the energy
equal of 15 tons of storage batteries. Even if much improved storage
batteries were devised, they cannot compete with gasoline or diesel fuel
in energy density. Also, storage batteries become almost useless in very
cold weather, storage capacity is limited, and batteries need to be
replaced after a few years use at large cost. There is no battery pack
which can effectively move heavy farm machinery over miles of farm
fields Where oil is used for electric power
production, nuclear fission can replace oil as a fuel. However, in the
U.S. now only about 2 percent of electric power is generated from oil.
Discuţiile despre reactoarele nucleare
regeneratoare (fastbreeders), minunea minunilor pentru fizicieni, le voi
pasa în pagina de texte şi linkuri în engleză, pur şi simplu pentru că
sunt lungi, complexe şi contradictorii. E foarte mult de tradus.
Ce trebuie să stiţi e că FBR-urile (fast breeder -
reactor regenerabil) costă enorm, mai multe miliarde, - în cazul Franţei
peste 10 miliarde - s-au aruncat la un proiect monstruos, şi până în
prezent din motive tehnologice sau nu, NU funcţionează.
Vă prezint succint tabelul cu cele care au fost
închise şi vă rog să-l comparaţi cu cele 3(trei) care mai
Super Reactoare regenerabile
Japonia a fost ultima ţară cu
planuri serioase de construire a unui FBR (fast breeder - reactor
Reactorul regenerabil prototip
Monju a fost închis după un incendiu în decembrie 1995 şi doarme de
atunci. Programul nuclear japonez este în criză şi Monju este
simbolul. Takagi, directorul CNIC , centrul de informaţii nucleare,
spune că reactoarele Superphoenix (FBR) nu au nici o viabilitate
comercială şi au fost păstrate peste tot în lume din diverse motive
politice si de marketing.
Exemplul Franţei e poate cel mai
grăitor şi poate cel mai trist.
Situaţia FBR în lume
Exceptând Phoenixul francez care
doarme de mai mulţi ani, nu mai există FBR-uri în Europa.
India şi Rusia au încă planuri
pentru reactoare regenerabile dar nu în următoarele două decenii.
Exceptând reactoarele mici pentru
teste, mai există 3 reactoare regenerabile încă în
"funcţie" în lume.
Lista cu reactoare regenerabile
închise, dintre care unele nu au funcţionat niciodată, e mult
mai lungă (mai jos)
FBR-uri în funcţie
* Situaţie neclară: Nu
funcţioneză, nu a fost totuşi închise
FBR-uri închise. Unele
nu au funcţionat niciodată.
Sursa:The MOX Myth, WISE NC
www.antenna.nl/wise/475/4708.html, 11 April 1997 ; Reuter, 20
Despre Fuziunea nucleară şi Fuziunea la rece
Nu vă pot spune decît că aceste "vise" nu au părăsit
laboratoarele nici pentru 3 minute. Ambele tehnologii sunt în
stadiul de cercetare fundamentală. Şi pot rămâne în stadiul ăsta 50 sau
100 de ani. Dacă vi
se pare prea mult va rog să recitiţi despre promisiunile ştiinţei în
Despre fuziunea la rece:
Here is how one famous nuclear science professor at my alma
mater MIT reacted to my request to him in 1991 to study the
summary reports from two pioneering Ph.D. scientists, who had
compiled seminal reviews about frontier experiments in
low-energy nuclear reactions (a.k.a. “cold fusion”). One of the
reviewing scientists was 34-year veteran researcher at our Los
Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and the other was a leader of
research at India’s Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC):
have had fifty years of experience in nuclear physics and I know
what’s possible and what’s not!…I will not look at any more
evidence! It’s all junk!” —MIT Prof. Herman Feshbach, May
1991, on the telephone to Dr. Mallove
nuclear în general, vă rog să vizitaţi acest site superb
http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html Cernobâl. Este făcut
de o fată care a calătorit acolo pe motocicleta sa. Pentru
cei cu legatura pe dial-up, site-ul NU este recomantat. Conţine
aproape exclusiv poze. Ultima pagină conţine o poză cu o sculptură care
în centrul oraşului şi a fost mutată după accident în interiorul
fostei centrale atomice. Sculptura îl reprezintă pe Prometeu furând focul
de la zei ca să-l dea oamenilor.
The World Energy Commission
says that a shortage of uranium limits the expansion of conventional
nuclear energy. By
2035, all American nuclear plants will have been decommissioned
and represent an energy-production loss equivalent to about 9 million
oil per day. Moreover, America, Germany, and France have all dropped
their fast-breeder reactor programs!
Overall, uranium is relatively scarce in the
earth's crust, at about 4 parts per million on average. Therefore, a
significant expansion of nuclear power -- even the five-fold expansion
widely canvassed before the incidents at Three Mile Island and (much
more disturbing) at Chernobyl -- would out-run readily accessible
supplies. These supplies include both deposits previously exploited but
mothballed due to lack of current demand, and known high concentration
pockets that could be opened up quite quickly. Therefore, the expansion
of nuclear would highlight the need to bring rapidly back on course the
development of fast-breeder reactors and pursue fusion technology." p.
90, ENERGY FOR TOMORROW'S WORLD; World Energy Council, 1993
This kind of huge and ruinously project (the name itself has something
Freudian in it) is an expression of the blindness and megalomania of
our arrogant technocratic elites. That blind faith in technology, that
irrational hunger for power, that firm belief that mankind can shape
its environment to satisfy its needs whatever the cost, IS JUST MENTAL
That is not science, this is madness. Science without conscience will
be our downfall.
So I conclude this kind of technology does not scale. If not, explain
why France abdandonned its breeder reactor projects, the country where
nuclear megalomania has reached its zenith. Why it has just magically
extended the lifetime of its old nuclear plants from 30 to 40 years.
Because it's awfully expensive - construction, maintenance, demolition,
ore mining, uranium extraction, waste reprocessing (requires itself 3-4
reactors full time), required infrastructures (all oil dependent);
costs are beyond reason. Because it's energetically inefficient when
all costs and constraints are taken into account - at least 50% of the
global energy feeds the entropy. Because we still dont' know how to
demolish those monsters and how long it will take, because we still
don't know what to do with the all the waste we have accumulated so
Because it's an economic and energetic nonsense. Because nuclear energy
was just an excuse for the military to develop their toys. If civil
nuclear technology couldn't have been used to produce plutonium, it
would never have existed. End of story. The rest is bullshit. Even
French former CEA (commissariat a l'énergie atomique) researchers admit
The fastbreeder has been stopped for nearly two years (1992)following
a series of accidents...
Superphoenix is not just a single nuclear plant; it is also the trump
card in the French
nuclear establishment's international strategy and
a key element in the industry's plans to perpetuate itself. With
Superphoenix, the French are front-runners in the field of
fastbreeders (which theoretically "breed" more fuel than they use),
and fastbreeders are the nuclear industry's only hope of prolonging
world uranium resources for more than one or two generations. (All
pro-nuclear scenarios, such as U.S. President George Bush's recent
plan, call for a shift to fastbreeders toward the middle of the next
century.)... France's state power company, Elecricité de France
(EDF), is defending Superphoenix, despite its record-breaking history
of breakdowns - it has operated at full power for less than six
months of its six-year existence - and its great cost - the bill is
over $9 billion for a site that is still not finished or in working
condition. Including fuel reprocessing costs would push the bill even
It does not appear likely that Superphoenix will win the necessary
approvals. The DSIN has stated that, before authorizing a startup for
Superphoenix, it wants to understand the mysterious and potentially
dangerous variations in reactivity that have been plaguing Phoenix
(Superphoenix's predecessor) for the past two years.
Superphoenix - stillbirth of a fastbreeder
The two French fastbreeders, Phoenix and Superphoenix, were named
for the mythical bird, perpetually reborn from its own ashes, because
theoretically fastbreeders prepare their own fuel. Functioning on
plutonium, they can at the same time transmute non-fissile uranium
238 into plutonium - thereby enormously multiplying the world's (and
particularly France's) modest nuclear fuel reserves. When President
Carter stopped the U.S. program, the French saw a chance to be the
frontrunner in a strategic race. Fastbreeders are also an abundant
source of military-grade plutonium, which is highly valued by a
French military that hopes to become the nucleus of a European
nuclear strike force. The technicians' alchemical dream thus blended
with state ambitions to blind the authorities to the incredible costs
and risks of the plutonium fuel cycle.
Economically, the Superphoenix has been a major disaster. The
reactor itself has already cost $9 billion, six times its initial
price tag, and it is not finished or in working condition. EDF claims
that the reactor will eventually produce electricity for only about
twice the cost of standard PWRs, but it admits now that commercial
models won't be viable until the middle of the next century.
Even that price estimate is misleading, however, since it does not
take into account the costs of the whole fuel cycle, in particular
reprocessing. Economist Dominique Finon of the University of Grenoble
conducted an extensive independent analysis of the plutonium fuel
cycle. He concluded that reprocessing costs roughly 10 times more
than stocking used fuel without reprocessing. In fact, Finon says
that "it would probably cost less to extract uranium from seawater"
than it does to reprocess it.
The dangers of fastbreeders are so great that many otherwise pro-
nuclear physicists oppose them. Superphoenix houses more than 6 tons
of plutonium, a human- made element that is perhaps the most toxic
substance in existence. It loses only half of its radioactivity in
24,000 years, and inhaling as little as a millionth of a gram can
cause cancer. CRIIRAD has already detected traces of plutonium from
the reactor in the Rhone River. Fastbreeder reactors are also the
only reactors in which there can actually be an atomic explosion. An
study conducted by Professor Jochen Benecke of Berlin University
concluded that "it is impossible to affirm scientifically that the
quantity of energy released would be less than the resistance of the
confinement." He concludes that "a brutal rupture of the confinement,
having as a consequence a catastrophic liberation of radioactivity,
cannot be excluded."
These dangers are inherent in Superphoenix's design, and were known
before construction started. The actual experience with Superphoenix
has added a long list of breakdowns to the list of dangers, and
demonstrated that the reality of fastbreeding is considerably less
elegant than the idea. An incredible series of "impossible" accidents
have occurred, two of which had been allotted an official probability
of occurring "not more than once in 10,000 to 100,000 years." The
accidents included: sodium leakage and destruction of the fuel
transfer and storage drum (leaving the reactor incapable of
evacuating or storing damaged fuel rods); the fall of a crane
weighing several tons on the dome of the reactor; a sodium leak in
the secondary circuit; cracks in the reactor vessel; and collapse of
the roof (under a heavy load of snow!) onto one of the turbo-
alternators, cutting off the plant from the electricity grid.
Understandably, the DSIN safety authorities have become unusually
and publicly critical. Last summer, after the belated discovery of
the problem in the secondary circuit, the DSIN director
stated, "There is a question as to the operator's control of the
reactor." DSIN is demanding that three problems be resolved before it
will authorize a new startup.
THE FASTBREEDER LOBBY is in trouble, facing difficulties throughout
the world. Germany's Kalkar is abandoned. The British prototype at
Dounreay may not be re-funded after 1994. It was shut down in June
1991 and repair is proving very expensive. The Scottish nuclear
industry has abandoned reprocessing as too expensive. In Japan, the
Monju prototype, scheduled to start operation at the end of the year,
has run into problems with the primary and secondary coolant
circuits, and has difficulty producing fuel pellets that meet safety
standards. (Substandard pellets can swell and crack fuel cladding,
leading to radioactive leakage.)
Among the DSIN's demands is an explanation for why the Phoenix
reactor has experienced sudden drops in reactivity. They were first
attributed to a bubble of argon leaked into the reactor core, leading
the CEA itself to admit that "a nuclear excursion [a euphemism for an
explosion] ... is theoretically possible." It contended, however,
that "the bubble would have had to be much more voluminous" for an
explosion to have occurred. The incidents occurred again, however,
just a few months after argon filters were changed on Phoenix and
Superphoenix. The new hypothesis (deformation of the fuel rods)
remains unproven, but also has serious safety implications. Yet EDF's
Tanguy dismisses their importance. "The incidents didn't occur on
Superphoenix," he says, "and I don't see why they would."