http://elpais.com
スペイン産業省は、1971年に建設されたBURGOSのGAROÑA原子力発電所の2013年の閉鎖を2019年に延期したい
Industria justifica en la crisis económica la prórroga a Garoña
El departamento de Soria argumenta que sin la nuclear subiría la luz
Greenpeace considera los argumentos "un insulto al consumidor"
Industry in the economic crisis justifies the extension to Garoña
The Department of Soria argues that without the light would go nuclear
Greenpeace believes the case "an insult to the consumer"
Rafael Mendez Madrid 10 MAY 2012 - 13:12 CET
The Department of Soria argues that without the light would go nuclear
Greenpeace believes the case "an insult to the consumer"
Rafael Mendez Madrid 10 MAY 2012 - 13:12 CET
The Ministry of Industry justifies its intention to extend the life of the Garona nuclear power at least until 2019 when, "in the current economic circumstances" Spain "should not under-utilize any of the available energy sources." This was argued in the draft ministerial order which partially reverses the order in 2009 gave the PSOE government and established close to 2013. Greenpeace considers it a "text ridiculous" and announced claims.
Garoña rubs and fingers renewal. The nuclear Burgos (Endesa and Iberdrola to 50%) opened in 1971 and is the oldest in Spain. It is of a similar design to Fukushima, and although some of his mates are already closed plants in the U.S. is similar reactors licensed to operate up to 60 years.
The ministry says as justification that "the need to ensure the supply is exacerbated in recent times due to the uncertainties arising from the conflicts in some countries, whose evolution can have a major effect on the international market for fossil fuels" .
Actually there is overcapacity in Spain electricity, as often reminds Industry Minister, José Manuel Soria, and closing Garona would not a system for the network. Arguments just forced the previous government used to justify the closure-like Garoña difficult meeting the EU targets for renewables, and were accepted by the Court.
Industry also argues that the delay in building the nuclear store (by the previous government) "is also a delay in the date to begin decommissioning." He notes that, in close Garoña, would raise the price of light.
In all, industry wants to repeal three points of the ministerial order of closure signed by Miguel Sebastián. Overrides which set the closing date, which began the dismantling and that prevented the plant to work or paperwork to seek another extension. You can not cancel the entire order because then Garoña would be without license. The nuclear now has until September 6 to submit a new application.
The term is six years (the electrical wanted 10) because the Nuclear Safety Council had all the studies made for an extension until 2019 (that's what I asked Garoña in 2009). It was physically impossible to redo the studies and seek new technical conditions. The Council will require Garoña to works of which you spare (change the wiring and a gas venting system). But it must also make improvements approved for all nuclear after Fukushima, and include the construction of a new building for workers in case of accident.
So the smaller center of Spain is expected to have six more years of life in which you must make large investments. In the nuclear sector is considered that Garona is just a symbol and that although it may not be as profitable, they would be a major milestone for the industry more than 40 years of life with a plant like Fukushima and when it has a little over one year of the accident.
Carlos Bravo, head of Greenpeace Energy, criticizes the contents of the draft and announced claims: "It justifies that there is a degree of energy dependence, but the plants use uranium imported from abroad too, so that argument does not hold." He also noted that "it is false that the closure of Garoña light up because the pricing system what is happening is that they profit in excess Garoña." "It's an insult to the intelligence and general consumers," he concluded.
Garoña rubs and fingers renewal. The nuclear Burgos (Endesa and Iberdrola to 50%) opened in 1971 and is the oldest in Spain. It is of a similar design to Fukushima, and although some of his mates are already closed plants in the U.S. is similar reactors licensed to operate up to 60 years.
The ministry says as justification that "the need to ensure the supply is exacerbated in recent times due to the uncertainties arising from the conflicts in some countries, whose evolution can have a major effect on the international market for fossil fuels" .
Actually there is overcapacity in Spain electricity, as often reminds Industry Minister, José Manuel Soria, and closing Garona would not a system for the network. Arguments just forced the previous government used to justify the closure-like Garoña difficult meeting the EU targets for renewables, and were accepted by the Court.
Industry also argues that the delay in building the nuclear store (by the previous government) "is also a delay in the date to begin decommissioning." He notes that, in close Garoña, would raise the price of light.
In all, industry wants to repeal three points of the ministerial order of closure signed by Miguel Sebastián. Overrides which set the closing date, which began the dismantling and that prevented the plant to work or paperwork to seek another extension. You can not cancel the entire order because then Garoña would be without license. The nuclear now has until September 6 to submit a new application.
The term is six years (the electrical wanted 10) because the Nuclear Safety Council had all the studies made for an extension until 2019 (that's what I asked Garoña in 2009). It was physically impossible to redo the studies and seek new technical conditions. The Council will require Garoña to works of which you spare (change the wiring and a gas venting system). But it must also make improvements approved for all nuclear after Fukushima, and include the construction of a new building for workers in case of accident.
So the smaller center of Spain is expected to have six more years of life in which you must make large investments. In the nuclear sector is considered that Garona is just a symbol and that although it may not be as profitable, they would be a major milestone for the industry more than 40 years of life with a plant like Fukushima and when it has a little over one year of the accident.
Carlos Bravo, head of Greenpeace Energy, criticizes the contents of the draft and announced claims: "It justifies that there is a degree of energy dependence, but the plants use uranium imported from abroad too, so that argument does not hold." He also noted that "it is false that the closure of Garoña light up because the pricing system what is happening is that they profit in excess Garoña." "It's an insult to the intelligence and general consumers," he concluded.
経済危機で業界はGaroñaへの拡張を正当化する
ソリアの部はライトなしで核行くだろうと主張している
グリーンピースは考えている場合は "消費者への侮辱"
ラファエル·メンデスマドリード10 MAY 2012 - 午後1時12分CET
ソリアの部はライトなしで核行くだろうと主張している
グリーンピースは考えている場合は "消費者への侮辱"
ラファエル·メンデスマドリード10 MAY 2012 - 午後1時12分CET
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿