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

21–30 of 396 posts

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#21

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Etheryte wrote: post #4

I think realistically this is the only way in the turbulent times we live in. Even in the small and interconnected Europe, you have to be completely self sustainable when the need arises. We've seen more than enough broken pipes, power lines and the like in the last year alone to underline this need.

> you have to be completely self sustainable when the need arises

The last few days have also laid bare that there is no sovereignty without nuclear weapons. A civil nuclear fleet is a stepping stone to nuclear weapons stewardship.

(Even absent nuclear weapons, see the special treatment of Zaporizhzhia [1] over Ukraine’s other power infrastructure.)

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_P...

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#22

Post by aw4y »

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 Italy is often not)

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#23

Post by amarcheschi »

patall wrote: post #10
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?

Apples to oranges. But in italy, solar with batteries may already be cheaper. Or geothermal energy. But, hey, they want to do a study and the study will find that out too.

Geothermal energy is already exploited in italy. About 1/3rd of Tuscany energy production happens thanks to geothermal, which is also used for heating purposes [1]

There are also new plants in the making [2]

Being tuscanian, I visited the museum or geothermal energy in larderello once, the area of larderello is quite uncanny, in some parts the ground is literally fuming steam. There's also a smell of rotten eggs lol

https://www.enelgreenpower.com/stories/articles/2024/10/geot...

https://www.lanazione.it/cronaca/geotermia-patto-regione-ene...

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#24

Post by datadeft »

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.

Most people do not understand this and think that we can reall talk about nuclear vs solar when we really need to talk about an energy mix where you pick one point (for example you pick nuclear or solar) and the rest depends on this choice.

Than you can calculate the price.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#25

Post by simion314 »

jonplackett wrote: post #17
frafra wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

In winter the days are short, the sky can be covered in clouds for an entire week, the solar panels can be covered in snow also. I have solar panels but I do not have a way to export my data to show you the summer vs winter GIANT difference.

So people like me with solar need the other people in the area not to all go for solar, then we will need to find a way to burn the excess. Is the same with a country, we can't store the energy from summer for winter and also resist for say 2 weeks of snow and clouds. The EU market might be so in demand that the rich countries will bid for the energy and the poor will have to burn their things to survive.

I am wondering if it would happen that with so many solar roofs we will either have to pay for people to use my energy or I will need to actually throw the excess in the ground safely somehow.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#26

Post by Numerlor »

baliex wrote: post #16
FredrikSE wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

To my understanding the use of nuclear would be to reduce the ammount of spread out battery stations that'd have to cover the base load when cloudy / at night.

There'd also be less overbuilding of solar as you have to build for winter weather and day length instead of summer if solar is supposed to cover everything

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#27

Post by est31 »

Etheryte wrote: post #4

I think realistically this is the only way in the turbulent times we live in. Even in the small and interconnected Europe, you have to be completely self sustainable when the need arises. We've seen more than enough broken pipes, power lines and the like in the last year alone to underline this need.

Italy neither has the engineers to build a nuclear power plant, they would have to ask another nation, like Russia, Canada or France, to build it for them.

And where does the nuclear fuel come from? Russia.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#28

Post by mik1998 »

jonplackett wrote: post #17
frafra wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Batteries simply raise the price of power up by 10x if not more. Not a viable solution.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#29

Post by amarcheschi »

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…

As far as I know - which is definitely not that much - there are literally 3rd world countries operating nuclear power plants without accidents. It might have to do with iaea supervision as well, but I don't know what they do irl so I won't comment on that

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#30

Post by cinntaile »

baliex wrote: post #16
FredrikSE wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Their math is a bit off though... 300MW is not enough for 3.1 million households. That's 97W per household for like 2 hours.
Post reply on HN