Nuclear technology is scary, remains mysterious, has monstrous dimensions, is implemented by persons suspected of having bizarre or questionable motives (scientists, capitalists, government), presents an unacceptable and unfortunately true risk of accident, and\u00a0 generates waste that nobody wants to deal with.<\/p>\n
Despite these criticisms civilian nuclear technology took a big boom during the thirty glorious years of growth and significant development in the industrialized world.\u00a0 For example, the nuclear share in electricity production in the countries of the European Union that have adopted this technology is 37 %, of which 78 % in France, 26 % in Germany, and nothing in Italy.<\/p>\n
During the global warming debate in recent years, but before the tsunami in Fukushima, nuclear power was presented as a \u00a0\u00bb clean tech \u00a0\u00bb deserving to be modernized and developed further with the 3rd<\/sup> generation reactors.<\/p>\n But recent events have changed this and broad layers of the published opinion (not to be confused with public opinion) are now demanding the exit of nuclear energy.\u00a0 If risks are unacceptable, so we must be consistent and stop operating nuclear plants, secure them, and then disassemble them according to the rules of art.<\/p>\n Why leave the nuclear later and not immediately?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n If the risk is tolerable for further twenty or thirty years (ten in Germany) then why would it not be for a longer time, with modern power plants, safer and more effective?<\/p>\n What are the consequences of this exit?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Is there a viable scenario or is it a bet in the future?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n