Let me share the following information that you sent me mail GREENPEACE.
Hello Emanuele,
we're sure you'll be interested to know how to invest the money of its customers, the banking group BNP Paribas (which controls Italy BNL). 
Angra3 is a reactor that uses technology so old that could not be built in Europe:
70% of the packaged components lies since the work was suspended after the Chernobyl disaster in 1986!
justifies its investment in the European nuclear (the EPR model, what they want to do in Italy ...) with its the presumed safety of the project and then invest in a shack nuclear-old almost 25 years.
Customers of BNP , and BNL in Italy, they know that their money used to finance nuclear power?
What if, at some point, many began to ask BNL to stop investment radioactive?
Since 45% of the deposits of BNP / BNL is derived from payments by customers, bank executives could not remain indifferent?
I do not think ...
work made it to the campaign against the banks Nuclear Spin
this message to your contacts, share it on Facebook, tell your friends.
Domenico Belli
QUANTO COSTA :
Ufficialmente, dovrebbe costare circa 3,5 miliardi di euro.
The construction of Angra 3 should start in 2010.
The reactor should be operational in 2015-2016.
LOCATION:
On the Brazilian coast, 130 km west of Rio de Janeiro and 220 km east of Sao Paulo.
.
Angra 3, the reactor should be built with the money of the depositors of BNP / BNL , is a typical example of "Sleeping Beauty " nuclear.
This is a second generation reactor, designed by Siemens in the 70s.
The construction work began in 1984 but were suspended after the Chernobyl tragedy in 1986.
70% of the components of the reactor has since CA storage at the site of Angra 3.
In 2007 the Brazilian government announced that it wants to complete the construction of Angra 3, and in 2008 the company public Electronuclear signed an agreement with French company Areva (the same who designed the EPR reactor on the basis of the "new nuclear Italian) to finish the construction of the plant.
(IN) nuclear safety
Based on a proposed 30 years ago, and with many components already produced (and stored for decades), Angra 3 reactor is a rather distant from modern safety standards.
No improvement or maintenance project could lead Angra 3 even close to the (presumed) safety standards for the project declaimed EPR (European Pressurized Reactor).
ILLEGAL 360 °
The construction of Angra 3 was approved in 1975 by a Presidential Decree (No. 75870/75).
This decree was subsequently canceled in 1991 (Presidential Decree of 02.15.1991). Incredibly, in 2007 the Brazilian government has decided they start the construction of Angra 3 on the basis of the Decree of 1975 (which, of course, no longer exists).
The reason is very simple: the new Constitution of Brazil, adopted in 1988, provides for a vote in Parliament (the Congress) for the construction of a nuclear plant.
Obviously, the Brazilian government knew that Congress would never have raised this (not so) Sleeping Beauty.
controllers and controlled
The biggest supporter Angra 3 has always been the CNEN, the Brazilian Nuclear Agency. No one, to be honest, it expects a real independence on the part of an organization like this, but the CNEN is indeed " exaggerated."
As the CNEN regulatory body may issue licenses to those who can operate in Angra 3 and between these actors is INB, an offshoot of CNEN that provides the fuel for nuclear reactors. The
CNEN also deals with the impacts of incidents occur in plants INB, while Nuclep, a group that produces components for the nuclear industry that word always belongs to the CNEN is like a big umbrella that protects suppliers, operators and contractors together with those who provide the licenses, and writes the rules.
business but not a guarantee of safety.
And in fact the 70 that we discuss how to make "independent" CNEN.
In 1985, with the usual presidential decree, created a Nuclear Program Evaluation Committee, whose report recommended, inter alia, to make the independent CNEN, (as now required by the International Convention on Nuclear Safety, adopted by Brazil 1998).
In over twenty-five years, has not really done anything.
BUFFALO THE USUAL COST
That a 1405 MW reactor costs only 3.5 miliardi di euro non lo crede più nessuno.
Anche se parte delle componenti è stata acquistata già negli anni ’80 (vatti a fidare) la realtà è che i progetti che circolano oggi costano parecchio di più.
Inoltre, il finanziamento in euro aumenta il rischio finanziario del progetto : il Real, la moneta brasiliana, ha fluttuato del 37% in un anno, rispetto all’euro.
Questa volatilità avrà un impatto sui costi del progetto.
Anche la necessità di aggiornamenti e adattamenti strutturali molto estesi, per cercare di migliorare gli standard di un progetto vecchio di trent’anni, avrà un impatto sui costi e, verosimilmente, sull’efficenza, la produttività e safety.
Finally, Angra 3 is so named because the same site there are already two reactors (Angra 1 and 2):
their combined power is 2,000 MW and has cost less than EUR 7.5 billion, ie 3 , € 7 million / MW.
How can Angra 3 costs less than € 2.5 million / MW? Assuming that the cost remains the same (with higher safety standards, costs increased) Angra 3 would cost well over 5 billion euro!
The potential of renewable energy in Brazil is huge and the costs of energy production estimates range electricity [For example: Joaquim F. de Carvalho, L. Ildo Sauer: Does Brazil Need New Nuclear Power Plants? Energy Policy 37 (2009) 1580-1584] clearly say that the cost of energy produced at Angra 3 (estimated at U.S. $ 113 / MWh) is higher than that produced by the CHP sugarcane (74 $ / MWh ) natural gas ( $ 79 / MWh ) hydroelectric ( $ 46 / MWh ), and even of 'wind ( $ 107 / MWh ) technology, whose production costs are going down.
BUT THEN WHO NEEDS ANGRA 3?
When some program (very expensive) is proved completely useless for the community is useful to try to understand who is really needed.
In Brazil, we find that the creator (and co-ordinator from 1979 to 2004) naval nuclear program in Brazil, Admiral Othon Luiz Pinheiro da Silva, is the president of Electronuclear , the company that would operate in Angra 3.
In 2006, the admiral said (a few months before the government's decision to reopen Angra 3) that the nuclear submarine are critical for Brazil if the country wants to be considered a great power.
It is well known that the plutonium extracted from reactor waste can build nuclear warheads.
Among other things, Brazil has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty only in 1994 and has never ratified the Additional Protocol on inspections.
More than once Brazil has prevented Atomic Energy Agency access to its core.
Well ... now you know who really need Angra 3.
Dissent
.
0 comments:
Post a Comment