|
| Žiga2222. 07. 2011 08:24:02 |
Starting point: http://www.hribi.net/novica/energetski_zakon_ez-1/625
Here's what interests me: what do you think about the planned energy law that provides for the exploitation of the hydro potential of the Soča.
Since I'm an energy engineer myself, I'm a bit torn; on one hand as a mountaineer, the Alps and Soča are sacred to me, which shouldn't be touched for every fart, on the other hand as an energy engineer I realize society's dependence and needs for (affordable of course, in the end the working people pay for all this) energy.
After a longer consideration, I would support this law, because it is true that with careful planning and construction, minimal impact on nature can be achieved, perhaps even positive impact on it (e.g. the construction of the chain of HE on the Drava resulted in a change in the river flow and some animals resettled there).
Furthermore, the matter is not only beneficial in the energy sense, but can also have a positive impact on tourism (lake), but in my opinion this is secondary, because Slovenes simply don't know how to exploit our environment for tourism development  .
In the end, if we look at Austria and Italy; they go and build without problems, even in the Alps, and everything goes quite well for them - tourism, hydroelectric plants and pristine nature. Of course, the prerequisite for this is good planning and proper attitude towards nature.
|
|
|
|
| VanSims22. 07. 2011 09:03:47 |
Hydroelectric plants are a one-time intervention in the environment unlike various TEŠ and similar.
It's just about deciding: TEŠ, nuclear energy or hydroelectric plants. Or a combination. Nothing else. Wind is very little here and some strongly oppose wind turbines too.
Then there's dependency on imports which is indirectly hidden in Austria's demands to close JEK. They have plenty of hydropower potential and could afford to shut down the nuclear plant. Which never even started operating and was nonsense to build in such a country anyway.
And that Austrians come and build up I totally believe. Because they come and log too! While we log so that say every tenth tree in the forest is cut for nice regeneration, Austrians clear everything on an area and only stumps remain. Because it's cheaper that way.
Anyone who's been to Austria a few times on a hike in the mountains or nature must have noticed. That's their typical forest landscape - forest and green patches in between. That's not pristine and not proper attitude to nature
But they think they're so ecological...
|
|
|
|
| Žiga2222. 07. 2011 09:12:27 |
True, although hydro plants affect nature no less than thermal plants. Least impact on surroundings has - note this - nuclear power plant. Of course if everything OK, done by regulations so no mess happens (all historical accidents were result of series of unrepeatable human errors).
Not saying we need to rely on nuclear now, but fact is for best grid operation (technical and price wise) we need all types of plants in the system.
On imports... Once foreigners smell we're import dependent, they'll bully and rip us off as they want. Say in Greece when during strike they shut all plants, had to import electricity at 3x price :P.
|
|
|
|
| VanSims22. 07. 2011 15:01:54 |
Very unlikely we'll get NEK2, because it's a question whether ours won't kneel before the "environmentally aware Austrians", who actually know exactly what Žiga said in the last paragraph of the last post... If not before, then when they make a mess like they did to the Czechs at their nuclear plant opening by closing border crossings...
|
|
|
|
| lynx22. 07. 2011 15:44:16 |
This with Soča will be withdrawn, no need to worry.
Fear of NEK is also partially justified. The chance of a serious incident is very small, but if it happens, the country is done.
|
|
|
|
| Žiga2222. 07. 2011 20:11:31 |
By the way, are there perhaps known concrete plans where and how much to build on Soča?
Concrete numbers, locations and facilities?
|
|
|
|
| GregorC23. 07. 2011 09:28:49 |
As far as I followed, it's not just Soča but its tributaries in the section from the source to Most na Soči.
|
|
|
|
| JTrogar23. 07. 2011 16:04:39 |
In no way should we say that environmentalists are uneducated. They are even too educated for most other consumer-oriented earthlings. That's why they are well aware of the potential danger that nuclear plants pose, since 100% safety doesn't exist. No one can dispute that. Krško is in a seismically active area. Americans rejected construction because of that several times. Strange, right. Expert from the Ljubljana Geological Institute Uroš Premru is said to have stated that the then director of Slovenia's electricity management demanded from geologists to erase geotectonic faults from seismic maps. That's how they were supposed to meet American demands regarding construction. The Krško nuclear power plant was built in secrecy. Project leaders had to pledge silence. There were rumors that the construction chief in the NEK area wasn't even allowed to tell his wife where he was going and what he was doing. That's why information about the unsuitability of the location came to light only after independence. It's said that this wasn't considered at all during construction. So don't be so sure about the safety of the Krško nuclear plant. Where there's smoke, there's fire, or vice versa. What would happen in a possible earthquake of similar strength as in Japan (in the 17th century a similar earthquake in Croatia completely destroyed Dubrovnik) no one can predict, but probably then really goodbye to our beautiful Slovenia and Croatia along with it. There are enough alternative sources in Slovenia that are less dangerous to the environment, but the lobbies of existing sources are still very strong for now. It's understandable when huge capital is turned over there, to which most succumb. But dear ones, as long as we have a nuclear plant, no matter how safe, there is also the possibility of catastrophe. If you don't have it, that danger simply doesn't exist. We must think of our descendants, our children, what we will leave them. I hope a wonderful and above all safe country on the sunny side of the Alps.
Best regards and safe steps from under the beautiful Golte, Janez
|
|
|
|
| Žiga2223. 07. 2011 21:56:37 |
@JTrogar
This about the construction of NEK is laughable  . So they were fiddling something in the middle of the Krško basin in front of people and suddenly after independence we realized we have a nuclear plant there? And that Americans themselves don't have data on where tectonic faults go?
If Slovenia is accidentally hit by an earthquake like the one in Japan, the nuclear reactor is the last thing I'm worried about, because with our unique infrastructure and system we have, we would probably all croak, whether we have ten or no nuclear plants.
Anyway, explain this to me;
- Japanese nuclear plants are built in one of the most seismically active areas on the planet (and then you say Krško nuclear is risky )
- Fukushima was hit by a 9 magnitude Richter earthquake, tsunami, several aftershocks of 7 magnitude Richter
- on top several hydrogen explosions
- radiation detected around Fukushima (I won't even explain that the reactor we have in Krško is newer and safer type, and works completely differently than in Fukushima) is barely above average (or radiation in our Karst is higher).
Please don't believe everything from the media (ala 24ur), read things from multiple - foreign sources -, preferably some written by experts from the field.
And you say nuclear plants aren't robust and reliable?
What are those alternative sources (that we supposedly have enough of according to you)?
What are the lobbies preventing the construction of these alternatives?
Slovenia is way too small and not influential enough to have any energy lobby here, because the entire energy sector and economy is tied to the west (i.e. Germany). The only serious "lobby" I see is the people, because in the end the people will have to pay for electricity obtained from these "alternatives", no matter how you turn it.
|
|
|
|
| Bojan_A23. 07. 2011 22:30:47 |
I study geology and the geotectonic conditions in the Krško basin are quite clear to me. But I can explain them to you briefly in a very layman's way. There are very fresh data collected by the Geological Institute last year to precisely determine the seismic hazard of the Krško basin. Namely, on the geological map there is a fault drawn directly under the nuclear plant. But geologists found that the Krško basin is actually one very large syncline - "U-shaped" fold, filled with young plio-quaternary sediments, which makes it currently look flat. The mentioned fault is probably a consequence of land subsidence during the formation of this fold. So yes, no secrets that active tectonics is present in the Krško basin. However, the nuclear plant is made to withstand a much larger earthquake than is even possible in this area.
I am for building the nuclear plant, as most energy experts are, because it is a very economical and very ecological way of generating electricity.
And whoever thinks that if we close the nuclear plant, we get rid of nuclear waste, is gravely mistaken. No! In scientific experiments and medicine, a lot of low and medium radioactive waste is still produced. God-fearing Austria without a nuclear plant still produces, for example, considerably more radioactive waste than Slovenia ...
As for the media and various 24 hours, I'd rather not waste words. I can only tell you that I haven't seen a scientific text from them without errors, falsehoods and stupidities. I'm immediately for banning them and stopping them from dumbing down Slovenes.
As for the ecological nature of hydroelectric plants, think about how many millions of people were forcibly relocated just at the Three Gorges Dam.
|
|
|
|
| VanSims24. 08. 2011 23:11:27 |
Just for illustration, when I talked above about clear-cutting in Austria. Typical Austrian forest landscape in the lower picture. Whoever goes climbing on Fallbach or just for a trip there, should turn 180 degrees at the parking lot in the opposite direction of the waterfall.
 1
|
|
|
|
| VanSims24. 08. 2011 23:17:47 |
Oh, what is that for in Stelvio, I also don't understand. What do they do with such captured chamois?
 1
|
|
|
|
| lynx24. 08. 2011 23:53:32 |
maybe they paint them or mark them otherwise for easier population monitoring, measure them.
|
|
|
|
| VanSims25. 08. 2011 16:11:20 |
In the meantime I inquired: cervi are deer in Italian. Given that it's forest around, it makes more sense.
Given that it's in a national park, we can only hope they use it for those purposes as lynx said.
|
|
|
You must log in to post a comment:
If you do not yet have a username, you must first
register.