Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

world-nuclear-news.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 396 posts

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#11

Post by ossobuco »

jacobp100 wrote: post #5
mg wrote: post #3

Isn't the price of a KW of solar panels similar to the price of a KW of nuclear power these days? I wonder what hinders us to replace the roofs of all houses with solar panels and put batteries in all cellars? It might still be useful to build out nuclear power plants. But the solar+battery approach seems like an easier first step to increase the available power, doesn't it?

Solar is much cheaper than nuclear. Italian new builds need to add solar panels. Nuclear isn’t a bad option too. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket

Sure, but given that hypothetical new nuclear plants would become effective in a decade or more from now, and that we already have an energy crisis, one would expect Italy to first ramp up the fastest option (solar).

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#12

Post by patall »

pfdietz wrote: post #8
mg wrote: post #3

Isn't the price of a KW of solar panels similar to the price of a KW of nuclear power these days? I wonder what hinders us to replace the roofs of all houses with solar panels and put batteries in all cellars? It might still be useful to build out nuclear power plants. But the solar+battery approach seems like an easier first step to increase the available power, doesn't it?

> Isn't the price of a KW of solar panels similar to the price of a KW of nuclear power these days? Solar panels are down to something like $0.20/W, a factor of 50 cheaper than a nuclear power plant. Solar panels are only a fraction of the cost of a solar installation though. Utility-scale solar is around $1/W, a factor of 10 below nuclear. Adjusting for capacity factor, solar is still several times cheaper than nucl…

And takes weeks to plan and set up. Compared to decades.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#13

Post by bilekas »

Nuclear isn’t something to be afraid of, in fact it’s a natural progression. It’s quite safe when done right, it’s cheap, there is the disposal question but in relation to anything else it’s pretty manageable. If nuclear was a bigger resource we might even see better research into better methods of disposal.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#14

Post by amarcheschi »

badRNG wrote: post #2

To be very clear, the title refers to nuclear energy, which may not be immediately obvious given the current geopolitical climate.

I am not knowledgeable about nuclear energy, however, I would not be surprised if this reversing could have to do with having a nuclear pipeline - or at least a nuclear knowledge - already available in the country, in case things go south and there's need to develop own nukes

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#15

Post by surgical_fire »

mg wrote: post #3

Isn't the price of a KW of solar panels similar to the price of a KW of nuclear power these days? I wonder what hinders us to replace the roofs of all houses with solar panels and put batteries in all cellars? It might still be useful to build out nuclear power plants. But the solar+battery approach seems like an easier first step to increase the available power, doesn't it?

It doesn't matter.

As far as I am concerned, self sufficiency comes before price concerns. Nuclear is very safe and reliable.

By all means, EU countries should keep investing in Solar, Wind, Geotermal, etc. but that should be done alongside Nuclear.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#16

Post by baliex »

FredrikSE wrote: post #9
mg wrote: post #3

Isn't the price of a KW of solar panels similar to the price of a KW of nuclear power these days? I wonder what hinders us to replace the roofs of all houses with solar panels and put batteries in all cellars? It might still be useful to build out nuclear power plants. But the solar+battery approach seems like an easier first step to increase the available power, doesn't it?

Well, solar and wind are only usable when it is sunny or windy. The only way to make solar or wind power sustainable is to have ways to store the energy, like hydroplants or hydro pump stations. Right now, they are sabotaging the economy to build sustainable sources.

If you add storage to the network you can store the surplus renewable generation for later dispatch, Europe's largest just went online: https://archive.is/p9qsS

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#17

Post by jonplackett »

frafra wrote: post #6
mg wrote: post #3

Isn't the price of a KW of solar panels similar to the price of a KW of nuclear power these days? I wonder what hinders us to replace the roofs of all houses with solar panels and put batteries in all cellars? It might still be useful to build out nuclear power plants. But the solar+battery approach seems like an easier first step to increase the available power, doesn't it?

Price != cost/value. You can produce cheap electricity at noon, which would have little value.

Isn’t this a pretty much solved problem though? Just add a battery to your house?

Batteries are just going to get better - especially over a 10y time span

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#18

Post by datadeft »

bilekas wrote: post #13

Nuclear isn’t something to be afraid of, in fact it’s a natural progression. It’s quite safe when done right, it’s cheap, there is the disposal question but in relation to anything else it’s pretty manageable. If nuclear was a bigger resource we might even see better research into better methods of disposal.

THe green narrative fromt the 70s is still strong today. Many of my friends still believe that nuclear is the most dangerous source of energy even though the per TWh metrics are pretty clear.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#19

Post by ReptileMan »

ossobuco wrote: post #7
mg wrote: post #3

Isn't the price of a KW of solar panels similar to the price of a KW of nuclear power these days? I wonder what hinders us to replace the roofs of all houses with solar panels and put batteries in all cellars? It might still be useful to build out nuclear power plants. But the solar+battery approach seems like an easier first step to increase the available power, doesn't it?

Probably the fact that we should first admit we have something to learn from China?

China spans couple of timezones, Italy is a boot.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#20

Post by datadeft »

jacobp100 wrote: post #5
mg wrote: post #3

Isn't the price of a KW of solar panels similar to the price of a KW of nuclear power these days? I wonder what hinders us to replace the roofs of all houses with solar panels and put batteries in all cellars? It might still be useful to build out nuclear power plants. But the solar+battery approach seems like an easier first step to increase the available power, doesn't it?

Solar is much cheaper than nuclear. Italian new builds need to add solar panels. Nuclear isn’t a bad option too. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket

The major point here is that nuclear is controllable energy type while solar is not. So comparing only the price is apples to oranges comparison. Most human energy consumers need energy with a fixed rate and all physical metrics withing a tight margin. To prouduce that with only solar energy is impossible.

This means you have to build other energy sources into the grid like gas turbines to be able to control the grid. So if you really want to compare energy prices than you have to look into the TCO.

https://www.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/11q58pe/price_trend...

Post reply on HN