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

221–230 of 396 posts

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#221

Post by ben_w »

trhway wrote: post #181
pjc50 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

I hear that plutonium is a metallurgical nightmare to work with.

Which is fortunate, because it's also quite easy to make plutonium by exposing (natural or depleted) uranium to neutrons…

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#222

Post by carlcarlcarl »

hoseja wrote: post #192
snailmailstare wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apologies to Mr Kurzweil, but I think the reality on the ground is that the cost of research into keeping an aging population alive is a raised risk of Armageddon. The political tendencies in older age demographics is bad, the politicians surviving so many decades after a first to leadership position is bad, the billionaires living long enough to find whacky ideas or even directly manipulate politics instead of gifti…

Gifting money to charities is way more catastrophic.

Could you elaborate?

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#223

Post by pavlov »

lovegrenoble wrote: post #131
snowwrestler wrote: post #99

Maybe not well known, but during the 20th century a number of nations started a nuclear weapons program, but then were convinced to halt the work by security guarantees by the U.S. You better believe that every single one of those nations is now revisiting that decision. For those wondering if Italy can afford to build nuclear: their economy is larger than Russia’s. As is Brazil’s, another nation that put nuclear wea…

Can We Please Stop Comparing Russia’s Economy to Italy’s? Who's comparing Russia's economy to Italy's? Apparently Lindsay Graham did in 2014. CNN in 2022. I like this article because it made me think about Russia and it's economy in a way that I didn't fully appreciate before. The article calls out an argument that compares Russia's economy to Italy's economy, using nominal GDP as a measurement. This is supposed to b…

Italy would probably withstand Western sanctions pretty well too, if it had a land border with China who would provide them with anything they need.

Russia's strength is not its own economy, which is a total mess.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#224

Post by bmelton »

bsza wrote: post #197
bmelton wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LiCoO2 / NMC aren't the popular chemistries any more. LiFePo4 is a remarkably stable chemistry, with extremely low risks of fire. In the unlikely event that they do catch fire, they are extinguishable with water. Nothing has zero risk, but there are much more stable chemistries available than those that formed this (rational) opinion.

That's reassuring to know, thank you for pointing that out. I didn't get the impression this was already solved since you still keep hearing about battery fires, but hopefully this means that will be a thing of the past soon. I would still skip this step and let it be the power company's problem though, simply because at ~400 USD / kWh they don't seem very cost efficient for off-peak storage (at least in my country).

To be sure, they're a cost -- but at least in America, LiFePo4 batteries are practically being given away right now -- 100Ah@12V for ~$100 US. I suspect these are the "let's make hay before the tariffs hit" prices, but there are a lot of unpronounceable brands making surprisingly high quality products in the space.

As for off-peak storage, these would allow you to replace a Tesla powerwall for ~$600-750 US. I don't know your country, or its peaks (or valleys) but on my sailboat, off-peak is night time or cloudy days, and in sunny climes, 600ah gets me nigh infinite power. Without clear skies, I'm limited to ~4-5 days of normal consumption.

(Not trying to nudge you off your position at all, just sort of reflecting/remarking at how practicable this all is at the moment.)

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#225

Post by JumpCrisscross »

hoseja wrote: post #182
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?

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

> has the US ever honored their word when it mattered?

When it mattered? Yes. When it was against its own interest? Almost never, just like every other great power.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#226

Post by tim333 »

flanked-evergl wrote: post #205
tim333 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not even sure they broke any non-binding agreements. But do share any if I'm wrong, I really would like to know. The words you quoted came out of Yeltsin's mouth, not Clintons: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/30921-document-9-memorand...

Dunno. "Clinton and Yeltsin did promise Ukraine “full guarantees of security" is from https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/01/ukraine-nuclear-...

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#228

Post by snailmailstare »

hoseja wrote: post #192
snailmailstare wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apologies to Mr Kurzweil, but I think the reality on the ground is that the cost of research into keeping an aging population alive is a raised risk of Armageddon. The political tendencies in older age demographics is bad, the politicians surviving so many decades after a first to leadership position is bad, the billionaires living long enough to find whacky ideas or even directly manipulate politics instead of gifti…

Gifting money to charities is way more catastrophic.

It's popular to talk about unintended consequences, and site the most egregious, but everything has unintended consequences on top of its intended consequences. The world without all of the billionaire attempts to make a good legacy for themselves would in fact include a lot less interesting things.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#229

Post by ben_w »

throwaway48476 wrote: post #201
ben_w wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Almost all nuclear plants in the west were built in the 70s and 80s. The number built since is miniscule so of course the costs are going to be huge, they're one off projects.

True but irrelevant. The construction of new reactors now is unlikely to be in numbers greater than back then.

(Unless new ones are SMR, which is why there's now business interest in SMRs. They may well have numbers large enough to cut costs).

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#230

Post by account42 »

klooney wrote: post #138
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can build systems to fail safe, so that lack of proper maintenance leads to the plant becoming safely inoperable, and only grossly-improper maintenance would cause a fallout incident. Is this guaranteed to work? The Chernobyl disaster was caused by grossly-improper maintenance, so… :shrug:. No matter how many physical safety mechanisms you have, a determined mechanic could remove them – but at that point, it beco…

> grossly-improper maintenance would cause a fallout incident. At scale, in the long run, you will get grossly improper maintenance. I feel comfortable asserting that without feeling like a total cynic. It's not just nuclear either, this is also a problem with dams.

... and with every other energy source. The only difference is that some spread the damage out enough to the point where people stop caring vs. (somewhat) larger but incredibly rare incidents that make headlines.

And that's before you take into account second order risks like people dying because they can't afford to heat properly during winter.

The damage from Fukushima has been so small that it wouldn't make it past regional headlines if it didn't involve the scary word "nuclear".

Post reply on HN