Many people died during the accident and as a result, primarily among nuclear power plants.
Even if you go to the microphone somewhere, half of your words are conveyed to the audience by economically, socially, ecologically dangerous, immoral nuclear energy, which needs to be replaced as soon as possible with environmentally friendly energy sources (the article does not say whether these energy sources should be the same morally and economically and socially safe). Moreover, I am sorry that I told you about it, but this immoral energy also works in your body.
Sympathizing with you, dear Konstantin Merkurievich, and your co-author, a member of the New York Academy of Sciences, Mr. Bagniuk, I reread the article once again and saw that you can be helped to give advice to the experiences outlined in the article.
First of all, I want to please not only you, but also everyone who is interested in it: we live in the noosphere, moreover, it is impossible to get out of it. This, as it turned out, is not a separate space where you can get, and part of the biosphere, mastered by mankind, where it reaches its activities, and noospherogenesis (creation of the sphere of reason by mankind) – is a process that has no end. much more can be read in the same Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky – the luminary of world science ("Reflection of the naturalist" book 2 "Scientific thought as a planetary phenomenon" M., "Science" 1977), to which you refer.
Once again, paying tribute to the indomitable spirit and outstanding intellect of Stephen Hawking, let’s take a closer look around our compatriots – outstanding scientists and not so much. It may surprise someone, but they, regardless of Stephen Hawking, talk about preserving the environment to ensure the further development and even the very existence of our civilization.
Academician V. Baryakhtar has recently spoken about this in the energy aspect, and there is a special study in the same aspect by a group of scientists led by Professor AI Shevtsov from the Dnipropetrovsk branch of the National Institute for Strategic Studies of the National Security and Defense Council. Ukraine "Nuclear energy – a guarantor or a threat to national security?" However, the conclusions from the speech of the academician and the mentioned materials are a little different from those in your article, Mr. Sytnyk, and some data differ significantly from those given by you.
Let’s try to understand together, believe me, nothing super complicated is needed, common sense and a small amount of but accurate (not distorted) information will suffice.
Half of the content of your article is devoted to the man-made impact on the environment in the process of energy supply of mankind, mainly in the production of electricity. And your article, Mr. Academician and People’s Deputy, is also an attempt to influence society: look, good people, here is energy, no matter what region you approach it from – one problem for the environment, for lab report writingpany all living things. At the same time, you say, there are alternative sources that could meet the needs of humanity now at least a third!
In support of this thesis, you refer to the statement of the US Environmental Protection Agency. Why do you, Mr. Academician of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, doubt the data of this agency or academies of a foreign country? Really from such "props" the specified thesis becomes more convincing? Believe me, you can’t hear how they will get into trouble: 17% of the world’s electricity production at nuclear power plants will be converted into 5%, 2% of "alternative" electricity will be inflated to 30%, and you will put your signature under this, sorry, lie.
There are data known to the general public of Ukraine: today in the world of the total electricity production at thermal power plants is 63%, at hydropower plants – 19.3%, at nuclear power plants – 17.3%. It is not difficult to calculate the share of alternative sources – 0.4%. There is also a forecast of the World Energy Council on the development of electricity production by 2020: nuclear and hydropower plants – 20% each, alternative – as much as 2% and the rest – thermal. And again, I apologize generously, but it sounds naive that alternative electricity is not allowed by "energy giants who" make money "on traditional fuel and" peaceful atom ".
These 0.4% of alternative energy today and the 2% projected for 2020 are largely funded by the same "giants". And if alternative energy eventually becomes profitable, that is, ten times more efficient than it is today, no one will be able to keep these "giants": they will earn no less on alternative electricity than on nuclear or traditional electricity. And it’s strange to me that we need to talk about this – today schoolchildren know that money is where they make a profit, and you can’t drive them with a stick to where the losses are!
But really, the problem of man-made destruction of the environment not only exists, it is becoming more acute. How to be? In my opinion, it is immoral to tell the ruined people that the only way is to change thermal and nuclear energy for wind or solar or energy using sea waves, tides or geothermal. Who wants to come up with such advice, let them take a sheet of paper in a cell, ask how much it costs to create 1 kW of "alternative" power and what is the power of current thermal and nuclear power plants, multiply by each other, and then look at the budget zero provided for energy development. If he is not ashamed after that, I know you can think about him!
We learn from our wise village. Peasants have long known that cultivated plants deplete the land, some to a greater extent, others to a lesser extent. But they do not complain about the immorality of corn, for example, but simply sow it on other predecessors – crop rotation was invented, fertilizers are applied.
The world community is following this path: improving protection systems, strengthening control over emissions, creating a system of environmental taxes. A system of interstate quotas for environmental impact is currently being developed. Under this system, those who absorb more natural resources will pay a kind of rent in favor of those who use them less. Here is an example of a pragmatic approach to the problem: taking real action instead of unproductive noise and generating fantastic ideas.
At the beginning of your article there are data on the negative impact of thermal electricity on the environment. At the same time, there are no proposals to recognize it as "immoral." Why is nuclear energy called immoral? For the fact that in a continuous round-the-clock mode, nuclear power plants supply heat and light to half of Ukraine? Or, perhaps, because they do not receive a penny for the consumed electricity for half a year?
Yes, indeed, we had a terrible accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant – the tragedy of nuclear power plants and the entire people of Ukraine. Many people died during the accident and as a result, primarily among nuclear power plants. What do civilized people, to whom we belong, do after any accidents? They understand everything that caused the accident, improve equipment, automation, control and measuring devices – do everything to increase the level of guaranteed safety of operation or operation of equipment, technology, create conditions that exclude the possibility of such an accident.
Ideally, conditions should be created that make any accident impossible. This is the question in nuclear energy all over the world, and it has long been concluded that the safety of NPP operation has turned from a purely technical issue into a financial and technical one, ie the level of safety of NPP operation worldwide is determined by the level of funding for technical measures. … And only in Ukraine are nuclear power plants already shouting: "As much as we could, we maintained the required level of security by saving on everything, even salaries. The end has come, but we are not asking for any targeted funding, we are still able to guarantee this level, but pay for electricity! ".
And only in Ukraine are the processes in nuclear energy controlled by politicians: the poeticized Verkhovna Rada imposes a moratorium on the completion of almost ready-to-operate power units; then they dictate from abroad whether to operate the existing units or to terminate their operation; then the crowd decides whether to complete those power units instead of the almost stopped Chornobyl NPP or not; then in the noise and commotion the question of the structure of nuclear energy management is resolved by voting. At the same time, the only argument that justifies all this disorder and senseless fuss: we have Chernobyl!
The logical post-accident actions mentioned above are recognized as the exclusive responsibility of nuclear exploiters – they alone must solve the problems that are solved and financed at the state level throughout the civilized world. Government circles, the Verkhovna Rada, individual deputies and government officials have the same exclusive right to interfere in the actions of nuclear power plants, decide their fate, recognize the compliance of nuclear energy with their own moral standards, determine even the fate of further development of nuclear energy – and all without the slightest responsibility!
On what basis? Because we have Chernobyl! The Greens are pushing over nuclear energy as if we do not have 2.5 billion tons of toxic industrial waste, with which it is unknown what is being done, as if there is no Dnipropetrovsk region, where this waste is three cars per inhabitant, as if there are no other environmental problems. Chernobyl happened to us! Even anyone through the media can hang any nonsense on nuclear power plants, if they first declare – so that a new Chernobyl does not happen!
I quote an interview with a principled and wise man, yours, Konstantin Merkuriyovych, a colleague – Academician M. Amosov, given by him to journalist A. Chirva: "How did this happen? At first, public opinion was warmed up by writers ( or poets? EK). Politicians joined in, saying that it was possible to make a career out of it: oh, we were poisoned, destroyed! Then doctors were caught on this bait, especially since qualifications in this case are not common. heads of hospitals and research institutes hurried after scientists. "Everything is bad, come on, you should buy this and that." And this flywheel spun so that now you can’t stop it. The people will revolt … ".
This flywheel continues to spin, drawing in new and new people, new and new layers of our society. And you will not immediately choose who is who among those who promote it:
whether it is a shadow company that arranges its affairs at the expense of nuclear energy under the general noise; whether he is another politician who earns the image of the "conscience of the nation" by extending another nuclear moratorium; whether it is a candidate for "green deputies" who covers his environmental inaction by beating the nuclear alarm; whether it is an impartial, unbiased person who has been misled by the flow of atomic disinformation.
I will continue the quote from the same interview with M.