Newsgroup: it.discussioni.energia
Titolo: Il Regno Unito dovrebbe valutare una uscita dalla Unione

Una Unione Europea priva di meccansimo che possano impedire
a realta' minoritarie di interferire per pura ragione ideologica
su uno dei pilastri economici, ovvero quello dell'energia,
praticamente invita ad andarsene, per non affoggare insieme
ai pazzi forsennati:
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/11709083/Government-and-EDF-in-talks-over-liabilities-if-Austria-wins-nuclear-state-aid-appeal.html
 
 
"The Government and EDF are in talks over who will pick up
the costs if Austria wins its appeal against the proposed
Hinkley Point C nuclear plant once construction has begun."
 
Sia chiaro, si ritiene l'azione austriaca priva di merito:
 
"... the Government and EDF both insist the appeal, expected
to be lodged this week, has no merit ..."
 
Ma quando sono in gioco miliadi di sterline, si puo' anche
comprendere qualche esitazione da parte dei francesi,
dopo che Areva ha incassato un disastro dietro l'altro
(e ripetiamolo: l'EPR e' un dinosauro, non si puo'
pensare a "produzione in serie" con reattori di quelle
dimensioni, pensate solo alla turbina da primato mondiale).
 
EDF chiede quindi che cosa accadrebbe nella ipotesi remota
che l'Austria vinca il ricorso. Suggerisco una risposta
valida come ipotesi altrettanta remota che ha il vantaggio
di non costare nulla e frega i francesi se volevano giocare
ancora al rialzo, giocando di sponda sulla vigliaccata degli
austriaci (vigliaccata, perche' sapendo che probabilmente
perdono, evidentemente lo fanno solo per sabotare il processo
di costruzione fino a 6 anni di tempo):
"Il Regno Unito esce dalla Unione Europea. Punto."
 
a) i francesi, se volevano tirare sul prezzo, se la prendono
   in quel posto ...
b) le possibilita' per l'Austria si riducono ulteriormente
c) l'effetto del sabotaggio austriaco si azzerra
d) anche se l'Austria vince il ricorso e la Commissione
esprime una negazione all'accordo economico, e' improbabile
che la sanzione sia anche solo dell'ordine del giro economico
contestato (l'Italia insegna che si' puo' tranquillamente
incassare una multa dietro l'altra e continuare a farsi
gli affari propri)
e) anche se l'Austria vince il ricorso e la Commissione
esprime una negazione all'accordo economico, il problema
si pone tra 5-6 anni, e probabilmente gli scenari saranno
cosi' cambiati che i politici che ora stanno pilotando
l'Austria in rotta ci collisione con il Regno Unito,
avranno altro da pensare, sempre che siano ancora al potere
(il cambiamento climatico sta cominciando a farsi sentire
e forse gia' tra cinque anni, l'idroelettrico che ha
permesso finora all'Austria di comportarsi con tanta
"puzza sotto il naso", comincera' a singhiozzare).
 
Allora forse si aprira' un stagione di "caccia" agli
ex-antinuclearisti ... (la Chiesa, con maggiore
lungimiranza, si e' gia' defilata).


A quanto pare la pensano cosi' i lettori (dai commenti):
 
The easy option is to vote to leave the EU. Then Austria can
object as much as it wants, no body would be listening. We in
the UK, would be back to sovereign decisions, regarding
sovereign matters.
How the hell, did we get into a situation where a middle
European nation, though it had the right, to decide what we
do, or don't do, regarding our energy resources?
 
WTF has Austria to do with it?
Another good reason - never mind a referendum - just get
out of this hell hole!
 
If Austria launches its appeal Edf should continue building
Hinkley C. If Austria wins its appeal we just leave the EU.
Simple really.
 
Considering its to meet UK energy Needs what , the f*** does
it ihave to do with Austria. God this is one of the many
things about the EU that annoys me.
 
Just get on and build it for god's sake. This should have
been started 5 years ago.
 
Hopefully, we will be out of the disaster (EU) zone in a
couple of years so the Austrians can go play with themselves.
 
As to what would happen if they succeed, if the UK has
already spent a large sum on construction by the time the
negative ruling occurs, it may give them even more reason
to consider a 3rd, cheaper option, which is to respond by
leaving EU (as many here have suggested).
 
 
Interessante questo approccio "sovietico" che frega di
brutto i fotovoltaicisti:
 
There is a very simple answer as far as the Nuclear Power
Industry in this country is concerned: it should be
State-owned and run with no profit motive. That would
secure our energy requirements for the foreseeable future
especially if all the subsidies to energy companies and
in particular the so-called "green" producers were
removed. That would pay for our own self-sufficient
energy supply and avoid any EU interference.
 
Good points. We could leave the EU save £12 billion. Is that
enough? If this sum is ploughed into energy each year and
written off would this give us free electricity? Is this
something for nothing?
 
 
Sono anche un po' infastiditi (cogliere l'ironia):
 
The EU has a blanket exemption with respect to State Aid for
renewable subsidies
 
Just one more example of (pro renewable, anti nuclear)
double standards, and govts. picking winners by fiat.
How about putting a price on CO2 and letting the market
decide how to respond?
 
 
ed un po' oltre:
 
We need to hold the high moral ground on this, so let's
build a squadron of Lancasters, bomb their dams and
severely disrupt the Austrian energy sector for the
next 50 years.
 
 
Pepati anche i commenti sugli antinuclearisti:
 
But you realise that, after 3 meltdowns nobody has died
there because of radiation and nobody is likely to die
from it in the future. Nobody seems to worry about the
20 000 people who died because of the tsunami.
 
The whole point of the safety systems we apply in the
UK is that a single accident - or indeed two or three
accidents in succession - cannot lead to a disaster.
The choice is stark and simple - use nuclear or return
to a medieval state.
 
Anything that uses the ecologist as a reference is
immediately suspicious though.
 
Nonsense. "Nuclear waste" and "nuclear bomb" are two
entirely different things.
 
An example of how any tin pot EU State can interfere in
our business. There is a hidden agenda probably laying
the groundwork for some form of compensation payable to
the EU of course.
 
If Hinckley Point C might constitute illegal state aid,
why can we not challenge the Germans for the subsidies
they are giving to the operators of thousands of wind
turbines? I'm sure they haven't got a specific
derogation from the European Commission.
 
If you believe there's no safe level of radiation, never
use a light of any type, don't sit near a fire and never
use any kind of communications device, including whatever
you typed your comment on.
 
Why does only one form of pollution matter? How are
nuclear plants (with a tiny chance of emitting pollution)
an "infringement on your right to life" whereas fossil
fueled plants (esp, coal) that continuously emit pollution
are not?
 
Even if you conservatively assume LNT (i.e., that health
risks are directly proportional to exposure level, all the
way down to zero exposure), nuclear's public health risks
are thousands of times lower than those of fossil fueled
plants. Even the closest residents get less than 0.1% of
what they get from natural background.
 
In addition to negligible (of any) public health risks/impacts,
nuclear does not emit CO2 (i.e., contribute to global warming).
The is no justification for treating nuclear and renewables
differently under policy.
 
 
Insomma un po' di aria fresca di fronte alla ipocrisia
e faziosita' menzogneria della stampa e televisione
italiana.