Modern civilization has always had a complicated relationship with nuclear energy.
On the one hand, there are posters from the Soviet era with the inscription “Peaceful atom - in every house!”, On the other, there is a potential mortal danger inherent in nuclear reactors.
And what about the threat during military conflicts?
Judge for yourself: a powerful projectile or rocket hits a nuclear power plant - and no nuclear weapons are needed anymore.
After the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, the world shuddered and became thoughtful. Its consequences have not yet been eliminated. The radiation accident at the Japanese nuclear power plant "Fukushima-1", which arose after the earthquake and tsunami in March 2011, although it was incommensurably smaller in terms of emissions than ours, but in terms of long-term toxicity, turned out to be no less fraught with global environmental shocks, given the proximity of the World Ocean. Nevertheless, humanity found the strength to shake off the veil of fear. As a matter of fact, he had nowhere to go. Without the so-called primary energy, one of the main non-renewable sources of which is uranium, nowhere. And in the same year, at its 55th session, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) adopted an Action Plan to Strengthen Nuclear Safety in the World.As a result, the upward trend in the global nuclear power market is once again becoming a priority. The pace of construction of new nuclear power plants now exceeds pre-Fukushima.
Tellingly, the atomic genie from the bottle was released at one time by French scientists. From school we remember the names of Pierre and Marie Curie. Pierre received the Nobel Prize for his work at the beginning of the 20th century, although the radioactive radiation itself was discovered before him back in 1886 by another Frenchman, about whom only specialists know mostly - Antoine Becquerel. One way or another, France, as a pioneer, became one of the first to actively develop nuclear energy, and by the 1950s it was noticeably successful in this. Today, 31 countries of the world receive energy from 192 nuclear power plants. These stations operate 438 power units. In terms of the number of stations, the USA is in first place. The second is France. (Moreover, in terms of the total share of nuclear energy in the country, it is the first.) Russia is the fourth, after Japan.
Immediately after the tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, a wide movement against the use of any nuclear technology developed around the world. Such major international organizations as the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Greenpeace, Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Friends of the Earth, Peace Action, and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service have emerged. And although their initial task was nuclear disarmament, starting from the end of the 1960s the rejection of nuclear energy and the peaceful atom was also included in the agenda. The result of this very policy was the widespread emergence of green parties, which in many countries today have become an impressive force that exerts a very noticeable influence on the decisions made by governments and presidents.
To date, countries such as Austria, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Italy have completely abandoned nuclear power.
Many states in all parts of the world are also moving in this direction.
There are, however, and zealously resisting this process.
It is not hard to guess that in Europe, among the countries that have applied to the European Commission with a request to revive nuclear energy and equate it with green energy, that is, solar and wind power, are precisely those that are somehow bypassed by the life-giving streams of Gazprom or to which blue fuel does not get a very convenient price for them.
Ten EU countries called for the inclusion of nuclear energy in the list of industries that contribute to reducing environmental harm, developed by the European Commission. According to the Prime Ministers, Energy and Economy Ministers of France, Romania, Czech Republic, Finland, Slovakia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Poland and Hungary, nuclear energy is safe and, unlike gas, will protect Europe from price surges.
Emmanuel Macron was the first to break down. Without waiting for the decision of the European Commission, he publicly announced that France was beginning to build new nuclear reactors. Its predecessors held their ground for ten long years, without taking any steps towards the development of nuclear energy. And now the dam is broken. One can understand such haste. About 75% of electricity in France is generated precisely at nuclear power plants. And although at the beginning of his presidency, Macron promised to reduce this figure to 50% by 2035 "in the name of preserving the environment" changed his mind.
Immediately after the UN Climate Summit in Glasgow, which called for radical changes in energy production, he says to the nation: “To ensure France's energy independence, to guarantee our country's electricity supply and to achieve our goals, in particular carbon neutrality in 2050, we for the first time in decades, we will revive the construction of nuclear reactors in our country and continue to develop renewable energy sources ”.
And this despite the fact that the same Germany plans to switch by that time to environmentally friendly and safe hydrogen, moreover, based on gas.
Logically, Russian gas, which is relatively inexpensive, is available, and from which Gazprom and Rosatom are planning to produce hydrogen over time.
It's time to join him and his source in uncompromising combat!
How can you not remember Cervantes?
“Favorable fate sends us good luck,” exclaimed Don Quixote.
- Look in that direction, friend Sancho!
There are giants on the plain over there.
Now I will go into battle with them and kill them all.
They own countless treasures;
by defeating them, we will become rich.
This is a righteous battle, for God himself wants this evil seed to be wiped off the face of the earth! "
And, galloping Rocinante, thrusting a spear into the blade of the mill, he spun on the windmill.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.