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

181–190 of 396 posts

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#181

Post by trhway »

pjc50 wrote: post #168
trhway wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world is lucky that Zelensky is the President of Ukraine and not somebody like me - given that Ukraine does have plutonium from its power plants, i'd be already making the warheads (technological difficulties? they were solved 80 years ago and with the modern tech the 3 years is more than enough to produce something working). That is also notable in the context of Trump yelling at Zelensky that Zelensky is suppos…

It's very, very expensive and (until last week) it was critical to keep the US on side, which would be jeopardized by breaking the nonproliferation treaty. The MAD argument still applies: Ukraine can't threaten to nuke Moscow without Russia obviously threatening to retaliate with nukes.

> It's very, very expensive

May be you mean uranium enrichment? When plutonium is already available, like in Ukraine, it is completely different game - you just need to chemically separate plutonium from the spent fuel. That is the only noticeable expense - needs facility with safety protections, etc. Or just a few people willing to die for the Motherland. The rest is putting charges around the plutonium sphere and timing them correctly with electronics. That is basically all. Couple weeks really :)

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#182

Post by hoseja »

snowwrestler wrote: post #166
rob74 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BTW, Ukraine already had nuclear weapons, but agreed to give them up for security guarantees by the US, the UK, France and Russia (!) in 1994: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

U.S. support of Ukraine fulfills a commitment we signed, and which Russia broke. The U.S. president doesn’t seem to care about international commitments, though. How does that work out in the long run? Would you do business with someone who tells you up front that they might break any promise they make?

Has the US ever honored their word when it mattered? You do business with them because otherwise they roll up with warships.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#183

Post by ben_w »

throwaway48476 wrote: post #169
ben_w wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't the price of a KW of solar panels similar to the price of a KW of nuclear power these days? Solar with battery backup is about that, globally, on average. But: the averages have sufficiently broad variance that there's places where one wins, and places where the other wins. PV+battery is between 75-140 USD/MWh; whereas new nuclear is, depending on who I ask, any of 81-82, 65, or 141–221 USD/MWh.

There's no reason to believe nuear couldn't benefit from economies of scale.

Everything seen so far does not suggest it will improve.

SMRs might, possibly, change that — we shall have to see. I have nothing against SMRs, but they're novel, and I've seen a lot of novel ideas that seem interesting, go nowhere.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#184

Post by throwaway48476 »

account42 wrote: post #171
throwaway48476 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a list of countries with a nuclear industry but no nuclear weapons program. Taiwan South Korea Japan Germany Sweden Italy UK (not counting trident) Ukraine

What nuclear industry does Germany have?

The map I found says there's still a couple operating reactors.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#185

Post by tim333 »

flanked-evergl wrote: post #175
snowwrestler wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

U.S. support of Ukraine fulfills a commitment we signed, and which Russia broke. The U.S. president doesn’t seem to care about international commitments, though. How does that work out in the long run? Would you do business with someone who tells you up front that they might break any promise they make?

There is no binding commitment that the US broke. You may not like that fact, but it is a fact.

Not legally binding perhaps.

> Clinton and Yeltsin did promise Ukraine “full guarantees of security, as a sign of friendship and good neighborliness.” The two leaders also reaffirmed “the obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,” including Ukraine.

Still - guess you have to check the small print.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#186

Post by pjc50 »

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?

Never mind the cost, it has taken the UK over a decade from initial decision to not yet completing Hinkley Point C. Nuclear is really slow to build. You can get a solid decade of carbon-free electricity out of solar panels in that time.

Panels today. Batteries as available. Nuclear eventually - maybe.

(people will respond with "what about SMRs", to which I will ask "what's the shortest time from decision to online that a SMR project has achieved?")

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#187

Post by speed_spread »

lqet wrote: post #158
jsiepkes wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the Netherlands has nukes in loan from the US. They are at Volkel Airbase. Officially it's a secret, but it's common knowledge and was also confirmed by a former prime-minister. In exchange for these loaned nuclear weapons the Netherlands promised not to develop nuclear weapons of their own. With the US now showing they are not afraid of doing a "rug pull" on agreements, one starts to wonder if the Netherlands should…

> With the US now showing they are not afraid of doing a "rug pull" on agreements, one starts to wonder if the Netherlands shouldn't start development of nuclear weapons again. This discussion is already looming in Germany, especially now that Elon Musk openly wants the US to leave NATO. There is a standing offer by Macron for Germany to go under French nuclear protection. The UK also appears to be more than willing…

Canada has been refused nuclear submarines by the US which are an absolute necessity to patrol the Canadian arctic. But the US also decided Australia should get American nuclear subs and cancel their order of French nuclear subs. I believe the French would be more than happy to build a few subs for their Western NATO friends for a reasonable price.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#188

Post by JumpinJack_Cash »

Mashimo wrote: post #66
aw4y wrote: post #22

The problem with nuclear in Italy is just one: how many time have you read about a public bridge fallen because of bad construction? Same for roads, houses and so on. Most of the time the reason is the company building those, trying to spend less in materials and avoiding regulations - something unfortunately not so unusual in Italy. So imagine what could happen with a nuclear plant... (nuclear is safe, building in I…

> The problem with nuclear in Italy is just one: Remember when Italy paid the mafia to get rid of nuclear waste, they put it on old boats and sunk them :D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_waste_dumping_by_the_%27...

Water is the best insulant for radiation.

Apparently even mafias bosses know that famous cartoon where it says that you could swim in the exhaust nuclear bars cooling pool

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#189

Post by mordae »

lifeinthevoid wrote: post #154
jsiepkes wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the Netherlands has nukes in loan from the US. They are at Volkel Airbase. Officially it's a secret, but it's common knowledge and was also confirmed by a former prime-minister. In exchange for these loaned nuclear weapons the Netherlands promised not to develop nuclear weapons of their own. With the US now showing they are not afraid of doing a "rug pull" on agreements, one starts to wonder if the Netherlands should…

Are the Netherlands able to control these devices? I would be very surprised if that were the case.

Could always dismantle and repurpose.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#190

Post by ossobuco »

tigroferoce wrote: post #74
ossobuco wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Italy (and others) could (and should) do both. Only thinking in terms of cost is short vision IMO. What happens if in 20/30 years you need to dramatically ramp up the energy generation (maybe everyone will drive electric, maybe house heating will be electric, maybe someone will come up with a new tech that requires a huge amount of energy, ...) and you already covered most of the roofs? or panels and batteries are at…

I didn't say we shouldn't do both, just that since we are already in an energy crisis, ramping up solar very quickly should be a priority, compared to nuclear plants. Nuclear plants will improve the lives of our children, solar will improve our own lives. The problem is that I'm not hearing anything about solar investments from the Italian government.

Another great move would be to stop the warmongering and to start buying gas from Russia, while we work on solar and nuclear.

Post reply on HN