Riportiamo qui l’articolo pubblicato alcune settimane fa sul blog dell’associazione Ekoclub International. Si affronta il tema della mobilità elettrica, che rappresenta uno dei punti più interessanti della Strategia Energetica Nazionale attualmente sottoposta a consultazione pubblica, e sulla quale stiamo elaborando un documento di revisione.
L’auto elettrica è sempre più di moda, non solo nei discorsi da bar o nei garage dei vip.
View original post 1.637 altre parole
27 American scientists and environmentalists write to President Moon Jae-in saying that the South Korea’s planned shift from nuclear power to green energy will actually hurt the environment. The letter was originally published on www.environmentalprogress.org
July 5, 2017
Honorable President Moon Jae-in
The Blue House
Seoul, South Korea
Dear President Moon,
We are writing as scientists and conservationists to urge you to consider the climate and environmental impacts of a nuclear energy phase-out in South Korea.
Over the last 20 years, South Korea has earned a global reputation for its ability to build well-tested and cost-effective nuclear plants. South Korea is the only nation where the cost of nuclear plant construction has declined over time. And in United Arab Emirates, South Korean firm Kepco has proven it can build cost-effective nuclear power plants abroad just as it can at home.
There is a strong consensus among climate policy experts that an expansion of nuclear energy will be required to significantly reduce carbon emissions and improve air quality. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the International Energy Agency, and dozens of climate scientists and energy experts have affirmed the importance of nuclear energy to climate mitigation.
South Korea’s nuclear industry is especially important given the financial failures of French nuclear giant Areva and Japanese-owned and U.S.-based Westinghouse. If South Korea withdraws from nuclear then only Russia and China would be in the global competition for new nuclear construction.
A phase-out of nuclear plants by South Korea domestically would profoundly undermine efforts by Kepco to compete for new nuclear construction contracts abroad. Buyer nations would rightly question why they should buy nuclear plants from a nation phasing out its nuclear. And a domestic nuclear phase-out would atrophy the workforces and supply chains needed for South Korea’s global construction efforts.
Solar and wind are not alternatives to nuclear. In 2016, solar and wind provided 1 and 0.35 percent of South Korea’s electricity, respectively. For South Korea to replace all of its nuclear plants with solar, it would need to build 4,400 solar farms the size of South Korea’s largest solar farm, SinAn, which would cover an area 5 times larger than Seoul. To do the same with wind would cover an area 14.5 times larger than Seoul.
The intermittent nature of solar and wind and the lack of inexpensive grid-scale storage require the continued operation of fossil fuel power plants. As a result, every time nuclear plants close they are replaced almost entirely by fossil fuels, which has resulted in higher emissions from Germany to California to Japan.
Given the intermittency of solar and wind and South Korea’s land scarcity, replacing the nation’s nuclear plants would require a significant increase in coal and/or natural gas, which would prevent South Korea from meeting its commitments under the Paris climate agreement, and would increase air pollution in Seoul.
The high cost of replacing closing nuclear plants would be better spent on technological innovation to make South Korean nuclear plants even safer and cheaper. Replacing nuclear with natural gas would require $23 billion as up-front investment in new plants, and $10 billion per year to pay for gas imports.
Instead of phasing out nuclear, we encourage you to lead an effort to both make nuclear even safer and more cost-economical than it already is through the development and demonstration of accident-tolerant fuels and new plant designs.
The planet needs a vibrant South Korean nuclear industry, and the South Korean nuclear industry needs you as a strong ally and champion. If South Korea withdraws from nuclear the world risks losing a valuable supplier of cheap and abundant energy needed to lift humankind out of poverty and solve the climate crisis.
We support the call by 240 South Korean professors and strongly encourage you to deliberate with a wide range of energy and environmental scientists and experts on these questions before making any final decisions.
We are grateful for your consideration of these ideas, and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Michael Shellenberger, Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment,” President, Environmental Progress
James Hansen, Climate Scientist, Earth Institute, Columbia University
Kerry Emanuel, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Pushker Kharecha, Columbia University, NASA
Richard Rhodes, Pulitzer Prize recipient, author of Nuclear Renewal and The Making of the Atomic Bomb
Stewart Brand, Editor of the Whole Earth Catalog
Robert Coward, President, American Nuclear Society
Ben Heard, Executive Director, Bright New World
Andrew Klein, Immediate Past President, American Nuclear Society
Steve McCormick, Former CEO, The Nature Conservancy
Michelle Marvier, Professor, Environmental Studies and Sciences, Santa Clara University
Richard Muller, Professor of Physics, UC Berkeley, Co-Founder, Berkeley Earth
Peter H. Raven, President Emeritus, Missouri Botanical Garden. Winner of the National Medal of Science, 2001
Paul Robbins, Director, Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Mark Lynas, author, Six Degrees
David Dudgeon, Chair of Ecology & Biodiversity, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, China
Erle C. Ellis, Ph.D, Professor, Geography & Environmental Systems, University of Maryland
Christopher Foreman, author of The Promise & Peril of Environmental Justice, School of Public Policy, University of Maryland
Norris McDonald, President, Environmental Hope and Justice
Nobuo Tanaka, Sasakawa Peace Foundation
Gwyneth Cravens, author of Power to Save the World
Wolfgang Denk, European Director, Energy for Humanity
Kirsty Gogan, Executive Director, Energy for Humanity
Joshua S. Goldstein, Prof. Emeritus of International Relations, American University
Steven Hayward, Senior Resident Scholar, Institute of Governmental Studies, UC Berkeley
Joe Lassiter, Professor, Harvard Business School
Martin Lewis, Department of Geography, Stanford University
Elizabeth Muller, Founder and Executive Director, Berkeley Earth
Stephen Pinker, Cognitive Scientist, Harvard University
Samir Saran, Vice President, Observer Research Foundation, Delhi, India
Tom Wigley, Climate and Energy Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado
This open letter, signed by 45 environmentalists, writers and academics, was originally published on Energyforhumanity.org
July 1, 2017
Dear President Macron,
We are writing as environmentalists, conservationists and climate scientists to congratulate you on your win in the presidential election, and to applaud your push for a carbon tax. Nobody has done more for advancing clean energy on the grid than France. In light of this knowledge, we are also writing to express our alarm at your decision to move France away from clean nuclear power.
Few nations have done more than France to demonstrate the humanitarian and environmental benefits of creating a high-energy, nuclear-powered, and electrified society. Not only was France host of United Nations climate talks, it also has some of the lowest per capita carbon emissions of any developed nation.
Any reduction in France’s nuclear generation will increase fossil fuel generation and pollution given the low capacity factors and intermittency of solar and wind. Germany is a case in point. Its emissions have been largely unchanged since 2009 and actually increased in both 2015 and 2016 due to nuclear plant closures. Despite having installed 4 percent more solar and 11 percent more wind capacity, Germany’s generation from the two sources decreased 3 percent and 2 percent respectively, since it wasn’t as sunny or windy in 2016 as in 2015.
And where France has some of the cheapest and cleanest electricity in Europe, Germany has some of the most expensive and dirtiest. Germany spent nearly 24 billion euros above market price in 2016 for its renewable energy production feed-in tariffs alone, but emissions have remained stagnant. Germany is set to miss its 2020 emission reduction goals by a wide margin. Despite its huge investment in renewables, only 46 percent of Germany’s electricity comes from clean energy sources as compared to 93 percent in France.
Solar and wind can play an important role in France. However, if France is to make investments in solar and wind similar to those of Germany, they should add to France’s share of clean energy, not inadvertently reduce it. Renewables can contribute to the further electrification of the transportation sector, which France has already done with its trains and should continue to do with personal vehicles.
Shifting from nuclear to fossil fuels and renewables would grievously harm the French economy in three ways: higher electricity prices for consumers and industry, an end to France’s lucrative electricity exports, and — perhaps most importantly — the destruction of France’s nuclear export sector. If the French nuclear fleet is forced to operate at lower capacity factors, it will cripple the French nuclear industry by adding costs and shrinking revenues. Eventually this will lead to poorer safety standards and less opportunities to fund research, development and efforts to export French nuclear technologies. Nations seeking to build new nuclear plants rightly want to know that the product France is selling is one that France itself values.
The French nuclear program has historically been the envy of the world. It demonstrated in the 1970s and 80s that the decarbonization of an industrialized country’s electricity sector is in fact possible. For France, the next necessary step to help combat climate change and improve air quality is to increase clean electricity from all non-fossil sources and massively reduce fossil fuels used in heating and the transportation sector. Nuclear power must play a central role in this.
Signed,
James Hansen, Climate Science, Awareness, and Solutions Program, Columbia University, Earth Institute, Columbia University
Kerry Emanuel, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Hans Blix, Director General Emeritus of the IAEA
Robert Coward, President, American Nuclear Society
Andrew Klein, Immediate Past President, American Nuclear Society
Steven Pinker, Harvard University, author of Better Angels of Our Nature
Richard Rhodes, Pulitzer Prize recipient, author of Nuclear Renewal and The Making of the Atomic Bomb
Robert Stone, filmmaker, “Pandora’s Promise”
Pascale Braconnot, Climate Scientist, IPSL/LSCE, lead author for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report and Fifth Assessment Report
Francois-Marie Breon, Climate Researcher, IPSL/LSCE, lead author for the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report
Ben Britton, Ph.D, Deputy Director of the Centre for Nuclear Engineering, Imperial College London
Claude Jeandron, President, Save the Climate, French association
James Orr, Climate Scientist, IPSL/LSCE
Didier Paillard, Climate Scientist, IPSL/LSCE
Didier Roche, Climate Scientist, IPSL/LSCE
Myrto Tripathi, Climate Policy Director, Global Compact France
John Asafu-Adjaye, PhD, Senior Fellow, Institute of Economic Affairs, Ghana, Associate Professor of Economics, The University of Queensland, Australia
M J Bluck PhD, Director, Centre for Nuclear Engineering, Imperial College London
Gwyneth Cravens, author of Power to Save the World
Bruno Comby, President, Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy
Wolfgang Denk, European Director, Energy for Humanity
David Dudgeon, Chair of Ecology & Biodiversity, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, China
Erle C. Ellis, Ph.D, Professor, Geography & Environmental Systems, University of Maryland
Christopher Foreman, author of The Promise & Peril of Environmental Justice, School of Public Policy, University of Maryland
Martin Freer, Professor, Head of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Director of the Birmingham Energy Institute (BEI)
Kirsty Gogan, Executive Director, Energy for Humanity
Joshua S. Goldstein, Prof. Emeritus of International Relations, American University
Malcolm Grimston, author of The Paralysis in Energy Decision Making, Honorary Research Fellow, Imperial College London
Mel Guymon, Guymon Family Foundation
Steven Hayward, Senior Resident Scholar, Institute of Governmental Studies, UC Berkeley
John Laurie, Founder and Executive Director, Fission Liquide
Joe Lassiter, Professor, Harvard Business School
John Lavine, Professor and Medill Dean Emeritus, Northwestern University
Martin Lewis, Department of Geography, Stanford University
Mark Lynas, author, The God Species, Six Degrees
Michelle Marvier, Professor, Environmental Studies and Sciences, Santa Clara University
Alan Medsker, Coordinator, Environmental Progress – Illinois
Elizabeth Muller, Founder and Executive Director, Berkeley Earth
Richard Muller, Professor of Physics, UC Berkeley, Co-Founder, Berkeley Earth
Rauli Partanen, Energy Writer, author of The World After Cheap Oil
Peter H. Raven, President Emeritus, Missouri Botanical Garden. Winner of the National Medal of Science, 2001
Paul Robbins, Director, Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Samir Saran, Vice President, Observer Research Foundation, Delhi, India
Michael Shellenberger, President, Environmental Progress
Jeff Terry, Professor of Physics, Illinois Institute of Technology
Tim Yeo, Chair, New Nuclear Watch Europe; former Chair, Energy and Climate Change Parliamentary Select Committee
I Ministeri dell’Ambiente e per lo Sviluppo Economico hanno pubblicato oggi un documento di consultazione per la Strategia Energetica Nazionale.
Il documento è scaricabile qui, mentresulla pagina del MiSe è stato predisposto un questionario attraverso il quale gli organi istituzionali competenti, le imprese, gli esperti e i cittadini possono inviare, da oggi e per un mese, commenti, segnalazioni e proposte.
Come accadde anche in occasione della consultazione per la Strategia Energetica Nazionale approvata nel 2013 (un’esistenza assai effimera…), non mancheremo di dare il nostro contributo.
[this article was originally published on medium.com. We thank the author Bob. S. Effendi]
In September 2015, German Environment Minister Barbara Hendricks made a statement which shock the world, Germany is likely to fail its 2020 emission reduction target which fall short by seven percent [i].
How could this be, to a Climate Change champion with its 520 Billion Euro Energiewende Program which aim to make German energy mix 80% by clean energy, that is mostly wind and solar by 2050.
As its stand by 2015 Germany’s renewable already up to 30% of the total energy mix, probably the largest renewable energy mix in the world. But the irony is with all that renewable how could Germany predicted to miss the emission reduction target? Isn’t the premise to increase renewable shares so that to reduce CO2 emission.
It turns out that German electricity is consider among the dirtiest in Europe not only that but to make thing much worse in the past 5 years after the implementation of Energiewende, German electricity tariff has double making it the most expensive in Europe and is not affordable to some German.
According to Eva Bulling-Schröter, energy spokeswoman for Die Linke, Germany left party, between 2011 and 2015, about 300,000 German homes get their power cut off because they can no longer afford to pay their bills [ii].
McKinsey just release a 20 pages report on German Energiewende which was featured in Die Weld, a German National Newspaper, that Energiewende does not achieve its goal in reducing emission and it has put burden on the economy but despite these obvious facts German Government refuses to acknowledge that their energy policy has become a dismal failure [iii]. Basically, what McKinsey is saying that Energiewende is a 500 Billion Euro disaster.
The fact of the matter, Germany does not make it into the 10 cleanest electricity in Europe according to real-time map which measure CO2 intensity (www.electricitymap.org) created as an open source project by Tomorrow, a Climate Change concern organization. Germany CO2 intensity is runs around 350–450 gram CO2/kwh whereas Norway at no 1 (8 gram), Sweden at no 3 (37 gram), Switzerland at no 4 (63 gram) and France at no 5 (66 gram) [iv].
According to Massachusetts institute of Technology study even if the whole signatories of Paris Accord do everything what they pledge to do, it will only result in a slight reduction in global temperatures of just 0.2°C by 2100, global temperature will still raise to 3.1–5.0 degree to pre-industrial level. [v]
According to the study to meet the target, deeper cut on fossil need to happen. Which is obvious that a lot of these countries are not willing to give-up fossil as a dependable cheap economic driver and has become a strong industry with far reaching political influence but instead focusing on renewable. This should make you rethink maybe the world has lost sight what the real target is? Is the Paris Accord is really about climate change or something else?
It’s a simple question, if the objective of climate change is carbon reduction, then what should be the measuring stick then, is it: a) How much renewable energy you put or b) How much CO2 is in your electricity.
It’s a no brainer, off course is how much CO2 in your electricity (CO2/kwh) or how much CO2 per energy per capita (CO2/capita). Germany has shown that the more renewable you put does not relate to reduction of CO2 emission in fact it has the opposite effect which is as also shown in California.
Even in California where strict environmental and climate legislation has been enforced for many years and has the highest renewable mix in the US, but with all those effort it still is fail to reduce its emission and increases the electricity tariff which makes California electricity become the most expensive in the US [vi].
Ron Kirk, US Trade Representative, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition co-Chairman and former Mayor of Dallas put it bluntly “The more you put renewable the higher your emission and so is your electric bill as proven by Germany and California” [vii].
What Germany and California has proven is that you cannot make intermittent renewable, such as wind and solar as primary energy because of several reasons: 1) its low energy density thus requiring huge amount land and 2) can only deliver at best less than 25% of capacity thus at the end require a fossil backup 3) its intermittent nature, creates a problem to grid making the gird unreliable thus maintaining a reliable electricity service become costly for utility.
With that in mind, we should not lose sight of what is the real target, obviously not renewable but carbon reduction and the measuring stick should be CO2 intensity or CO2 per capita not renewable and to achieve that there is only one way to do it that is replacing all fossil especially coal as primary energy with another zero-emission energy source which can act as base load meaning operating 24/7.
It’s a simple formula, your primary energy mix should be more than 65% zero carbon energy, It’s either Hydro or Nuclear or combination. With Norway its 97% Hydro, or with France its 79% Nuclear or combination of the two like Sweden with Hydro 36% and Nuclear 35%.
It is a simple fact that without combination of these two form of energy there is no way you could achieve a decarbonization economy, it is not a theory but it is an indisputable fact. In fact, Nuclear produces more than 60% of zero carbon electricity in the world.
So it is ridiculous for countries which committed to climate change but follow in the foot step of Germany by closing down its nuclear power plant, such as Switzerland [viii]. The fact is that Nuclear was never on table or discuss in any UNFCC document. Even in the latest UN Deputy Secretary General speech on The Goal of Climate Change, there is a lot of mention of clean energy, a lot mention of wind and solar but no nuclear. Is Nuclear not a clean energy? [ix]
So in the end, if the discussion on climate change does not include Nuclear on the table then the Billion Dollar Question is: are they seriously want to fight climate change or just being anti-nuclear ?.
Jakarta, 6 June 2017
Bob S. Effendi
End Notes
[i] Germany unlikely to meet carbon reduction targets for 2020 | http://www.dw.com/en/germany-unlikely-to-meet-carbon-reduction-targets-for-2020/a-17802417
[ii] Over 300,000 poverty-hit German homes have power cut off each year | https://www.thelocal.de/20170302/over-300000-poverty-hit-german-homes-have-power-cut-off-each-year
[iii] ‘Die Welt’ Article Warns: German “Energiewende Risks Becoming a Disaster” …As Costs Explode! | http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/08/die-welt-article-warns-german-energiewende-risks-becoming-a-disaster-as-costs-explode/#sthash.3Ewp4tPQ.dpuf
[iv] List of countries according to the lowest emission | https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=highscore
[v] MIT News, Report: Expected Paris commitments insufficient to stabilize climate by century’s end | http://news.mit.edu/2015/paris-commitments-insufficient-to-stabilize-climate-by-2100-1022
[vi] Climate Change, and California’s Failed Solution | http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2016/05/05/climate_change_and_californias_failed_solution_102154.html
[vii] Bloomberg TV interview May 25, 2016 : Ron Kirk | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqELgPdaX-g&feature=share
[viii] Switzerland votes to ban nuclear plants, shift to renewable energy in referendum | http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-22/swiss-voters-embrace-shift-to-renewable-energy/8545844
[ix] Energy is at the Hearts of Global Goals and Paris Agreement | http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/energy-is-at-the-heart-of-global-goals-and-paris-agreement/
[34 secondi densi di errori]
Non è la prima volta che ci troviamo a dover commentare le inesattezze, le imprecisioni e le falsità diffuse dagli organi di stampa e dai mezzi di comunicazione di massa italiani sull’incidente di Fukushima e, in generale, sull’impiego civile delle tecnologie nucleari.
Lo scivolone del TG5 è, in questo caso, un esempio emblematico non solo della scarsa professionalità e della superficialità dei media nei confronti di tematiche così delicate e importanti, ma anche – ci duole dirlo – di un generalizzato atteggiamento ostile e diffidente dell’establishment culturale italiano verso l’energia nucleare.
E’ impossibile non notare come ogni occasione sia utile – spesso come in questo caso su presupposti assolutamente errati e pretestuosi – per rinvigorire nell’opinione pubblica il senso di diffidenza nei confronti delle tecnologie nucleari. Tecnologie che, pur non essendo impiegate nel nostro Paese per produrre energia elettrica, sono parte integrante del tessuto industriale italiano e di numerosissime realtà applicative in campo medico, agricolo, di ricerca.
L’ostilità è resa evidente dalla facilità con cui le notizie false su questo argomento passino sostanzialmente inosservate. In piena epoca di lotta alle cosiddette fake news, a quali ondate di indignazione assisteremmo, in altri contesti?
Riportiamo qui sotto la trascrizione delle affermazioni andate in onda, e la copia della lettera che abbiamo fatto pervenire alla redazione del TG5.
«Con un referendum la Svizzera ha deciso di abbandonare le centrali nucleari puntando tutto sulla energia rinnovabile. Il 58,2% degli svizzeri ha votato sì alla legge proposta dal parlamento elvetico decidendo così di investire tutto sulla green economy. Il processo di denuclearizzazione era già stato avviato con la chiusura di 2 centrali delle 5 presenti, una decisione accelerata dal tragico incidente di Fukushima in Giappone che causò centinaia di vittime e rese la zona inaccessibile a causa delle radiazioni nucleari.»
TG5, edizione delle ore 20, 21/05/2017: minuto 25:04 – 25:38
Il caso sta rimbalzando sui media nazionali.
Sono in ballo cifre da capogiro (che aumentano di rimbalzo in rimbalzo). Ma l’argomento è interessante sotto molti punti di vista. E lo approfondiremo nei prossimi giorni.
Per ora ci limitiamo ad un’osservazione sulla dichiarazione della direttrice di Greenpeace International, riportata in conclusione all’articolo di Repubblica “Greenpeace minacciata di chiusura: una multinazionale chiede 200 milioni di euro”:
«Noi abbiamo 55 milioni di persone che ci danno online il loro supporto. Non credo che sia una buona politica sfidare il peso dell’opinione pubblica»
Se non è intimidatoria, è senz’altro pericolosamente demagogica.
Greenpeace, forte del consenso “online” di più di 50 milioni di persone, pare minacciare chi osi sfidare l’opinione pubblica. Incidentalmente, nel sito di Greenpeace si parla invece di 3 milioni di sostenitori. Viene da chiederci se per arrivare alla cifra di 55 milioni si stiano per caso conteggiando anche i follower sui vari social network o i like ad articoli e post, o chiunque abbia donato anche soltanto un euro nel corso della propria vita ad una qualsiasi delle campagne promosse da Greenpeace nella sua quarantennale storia. Molte persone potrebbero inconsapevolmente essere conteggiate in questo ideale esercito capitanato dai paladini dell’ambientalismo militante!
Infografica di resolutevgreenpeace.com, sito internet dove l’azienda Resolute Forest Products ed i suoi legali rappresentanti forniscono continui aggiornamenti sulla “battaglia” in corso http://www.resolutevgreenpeace.com/blog/2017/3/10/greenpeace-admits-its-attacks-on-resolute-were-non-verifiable-statements-of-subjective-opinion
Numeri a parte, l’aspetto più grave della questione è, a nostro parere, l’esplicito invito di Greenpeace nei confronti di governi e aziende private, a comportamenti demagogici, legati essenzialmente all’acquisizione del consenso. Consenso, come ben sappiamo, basato spesso su false informazioni, alimentate da una de-cultura scientifica dilagante.
Protezione ambientale, vaccini, OGM, energia nucleare… per quanto tempo ancora, su questo e altri temi vedremo anteporre il consenso popolare (manipolato facendo leva su paure irrazionali, sentimentalismi ed illusioni) alla realtà dei fatti e della ragione?
Realtà dei fatti che potrebbe anche comprendere un consenso molto diverso da – se non proprio opposto a – quello dipinto e strombazzato nei media…
Greenpeace Finally Realizes Its Attacks on Canadian Communities Have Consequences:
