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

251–260 of 396 posts

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#251

Post by account42 »

wkat4242 wrote: post #75
IsTom wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just don't build the plant next to Vesuvius. The biggest recorded earthquake in Europe was 7.1 magnitude, compared to 7.4 that caused tsunami that hit fukushima.

The thing is, it's not the biggest earthquake in the past we have to worry about, it's the biggest one in the future. And climate change can have very sudden and unpredictable results too as we've seen all over the world in recent years.

Do you have any evidence to indicate that earthquakes could increase due to climate or is this just FUD.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#252

Post by pjmlp »

regularjack wrote: post #165
pjmlp wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As Portuguese, and regarding how things work there, regardless of whatever achievements get acomplished, the ways how to do business and handle bureaucracy walls aren't very far from stereotypes, even if it was improved during the last decades. I assume same applies in Italy, given that we share some of those stereotypes.

I'm portuguese and I completely disagree with this. Stereotypes are just stereotypes, generalizing 10M people into a dumbed down pseudo reality doesn't make sense.

Then I can tell you that the favours culture is as actual as ever, maybe we hang around in different parts of the country.

Additionally, one just has to watch the news to see how it works, especially among our beloved politicians and major economical groups, should I list them here for our foreign friends?

Or are you going to say it is all fake news?

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#253

Post by wizzwizz4 »

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.

Nuclear power plants don't need to be built at scale. I reckon we could get away with a few thousand in the entire world. And by "grossly improper", I mean things that are more expensive than correct maintenance, and make the power plant work less well: I can't rule out that anyone would want to do that, but you'd need a bona fide conspiracy (or some kind of purge of all available experts) to even attempt it.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#254

Post by pfdietz »

mpweiher wrote: post #141
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…

Exactly. The US nuclear umbrella was not charity, contrary what some in the US appear to believe. It was and is a pure power play. Another little tidbit that is not generally well-known is that the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) actually requires the current nuclear powers to get rid of their nuclear weapons...eventually.

You're going to see just how much of an act of charity it was when it's withdrawn.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#255

Post by mrweasel »

gpderetta wrote: post #109
miklosz wrote: post #94

Oh, I hoped it's about nuclear weapons. Pitty, it's not. Now, as US is slowly leaving NATO, European countries should urgently work on increasing their nuclear capabilities, developing strategic and tactical nuclear weapons and means of delivery (rockets, bombers, submarines).

Can you effectively have nuclear weapons without a civilian nuclear power infra?

Depends on what you mean by "effectively". Yes, you can absolutely have nuclear weapons without nuclear power infrastructure, North Korea and Israel both have nuclear weapons, but no nuclear power programs.

Having a civilian program makes things a little easier, or at least easier to hide. Italy does have a tiny uranium reserve, which it never mined, but I'd guess that they'd need to buy the uranium they'd need for a nuclear weapon. That's a bit easier to do, if you can disguise it as nuclear fuel.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#256

Post by pjc50 »

sras-me wrote: post #250
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.

I am curious about the plan of Europe about on countering a nuclear first strike on Ukraine by Russia, because the latter has run out of options because the war dragged on and on by the support from Europe, draining Russia of everything they have..

> draining Russia of everything they have

They can always just stop? It's not as if Ukranian tanks are at the gates of Moscow, it's more like the US withdrawal from Afghanistan. Or the previous USSR withdrawal from Afghanistan.

It is unclear whether the UK or France would threaten a retaliatory strike in case of nuclear weapons use not against their own territory. It doesn't seem likely, but if there's one thing Putin is very cautious about it's his own personal survival.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#257

Post by echoangle »

mpweiher wrote: post #202
lovegrenoble wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While CNN's assertion that Russia's economy is on par with Italy's in nominal GDP may be technically accurate, it does not fully consider the economic nuances that are crucial to a comprehensive analysis. This is an example of propaganda.

Well, if it is [technically] correct, then it's obviously not "propaganda", but simply the truth. Now you obviously can argue that there should be other considerations, but that is your argument and interpretation, not the obvious truth that the actual data needs to be judged against.

Just to be pedantic, propaganda doesn't have to be false.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#258

Post by ttoinou »

mpweiher wrote: post #127
ttoinou wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No their economy is not larger than Russia, this is a common trope among people whose only way to reach reality is to irrationally use statistics computed by bureaucrats

Actually: it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...

Your assumptions are wrong. GDP does not mean anything in real life

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#259

Post by willvarfar »

account42 wrote: post #251
wkat4242 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, it's not the biggest earthquake in the past we have to worry about, it's the biggest one in the future. And climate change can have very sudden and unpredictable results too as we've seen all over the world in recent years.

Do you have any evidence to indicate that earthquakes could increase due to climate or is this just FUD.

The poster isn't saying they are related. The poster is listing two separate things.
Post reply on HN