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

341–350 of 396 posts

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#341

Post by mpweiher »

echoangle wrote: post #307
mpweiher wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause." Citing a correct fact about the world is not propaganda, as facts are neither doctrine nor "reflect views".

You can cite facts to provoke an emotional response and make people sympathetic to your ideology. That's propaganda. > Citing a correct fact about the world is not propaganda, as facts are neither doctrine nor "reflect views". It says "propagation of doctrine" and facts can be used to propagate a doctrine. Edit: Here's a definition from Wikipedia: > NATO's 2011 guidance for military public affairs defines propaganda…

I didn't say that.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#342

Post by rhubinak »

throw0101a wrote: post #336
llm_nerd wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And where does the nuclear fuel come from? Canada, Khazakhstan, Namibi, and so on. Russia is pretty far down the list. Australia has the largest known reserves of uranium they just haven pushed to extensively extract it.

> Canada, Khazakhstan, Namibi, and so on. Russia is pretty far down the list. Not wrong, but Russia controls about half of the world's enrichment capacity. If you want to avoid possible lock-in, then you may want to look at reactors that do not need enriched uranium (like CANDU: it does have an extra up-front cost for 'heavy water' though).

There's no need for Russia to get involved. As per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium

> The following countries are known to operate enrichment facilities: Argentina, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Iran, Japan, the Netherlands, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#343

Post by echoangle »

mpweiher wrote: post #341
echoangle wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can cite facts to provoke an emotional response and make people sympathetic to your ideology. That's propaganda. > Citing a correct fact about the world is not propaganda, as facts are neither doctrine nor "reflect views". It says "propagation of doctrine" and facts can be used to propagate a doctrine. Edit: Here's a definition from Wikipedia: > NATO's 2011 guidance for military public affairs defines propaganda…

I didn't say that.

> Well, if it is [technically] correct, then it's obviously not "propaganda", but simply the truth.

What does that mean?

Claim is correct => Claim is not propaganda

Also means

Claim is propaganda => Claim can not be correct

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#344

Post by [deleted] »

himinlomax wrote: post #101
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?

What's the price of solar power at night?

[deleted]

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#345

Post by wkat4242 »

est31 wrote: post #122
Fragoel2 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is simply incorrect, Italian companies are already building nuclear reactors/power plants abroad. Enel has built/is managing nuclear plants in Spain and Slovakia: https://www.enel.com/media/explore/search-press-releases/pre... Eni is involved in building the first fusion plant: https://www.ansa.it/english/news/science_tecnology/2024/04/0...

I would classify ITER as basic research instead of a commercial nuclear power plant. I didn't know that Enel operates nuclear power plants, that's interesting, but they seem to come from an acquisition of Endesa and have been constructed way before that acquisition, and from designs of foreign places. So they aren't modern generation reactors that one would want to build from scratch. As for the Slovakian nuclear pow…

> I would classify ITER as basic research instead of a commercial nuclear power plant.

Absolutely correct. It will never serve as a power plant. It's a giant experiment, that's what the E stands for. We should be so lucky that one day it will generate a few minutes of power :)

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#346

Post by wkat4242 »

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.

No I didn't say that but extreme weather as a result of climate change is another major risk factor.

Look at what happened here in Spain in Valencia only a few months ago. Unprecedented in the region's recorded history. Yet it keeps happening more and more.

But I can see how the way I worded it suggests I meant that yes. I should have been clearer. What I did mean to say is that recorded history is like a microsecond in geological time and I wouldn't put too much confidence in predicting based on that short period.

But they are two different risks. Over exacerbated by climate change, the other indeed not.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#347

Post by throw0101a »

rhubinak wrote: post #342
throw0101a wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Canada, Khazakhstan, Namibi, and so on. Russia is pretty far down the list. Not wrong, but Russia controls about half of the world's enrichment capacity. If you want to avoid possible lock-in, then you may want to look at reactors that do not need enriched uranium (like CANDU: it does have an extra up-front cost for 'heavy water' though).

There's no need for Russia to get involved. As per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium > The following countries are known to operate enrichment facilities: Argentina, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Iran, Japan, the Netherlands, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Great: but how much spare capacity do they have? A lot of these are primarily serving domestic needs.

Heck, >25% of the US's uranium comes from Russia:

* https://www.visualcapitalist.com/where-the-u-s-gets-its-enri...

Being able to use "plain" uranium greatly expands your supplier options.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#348

Post by klooney »

account42 wrote: post #230
klooney wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 pas…

Solar panels fail pretty safe. I guess there's fire risk? Wind turbines are generally located in areas where rapid unscheduled disassembly would be harmless.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#349

Post by rstuart4133 »

himinlomax wrote: post #101
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?

What's the price of solar power at night?

I can give you a real answer: about USD$0.20/kWh.

We are off grid, just purchased solar + batteries that will supply all power needs, including running aircon and hot water at night. That's the purchase price, amortised over 10 years assuming our current daily usage.

The reality is our anticipated power usage will go up with electric cars and the system is speced to cope, and parts will last over twice the 10 years.

I suspect your question was purely retorical. You weren't fishing for an answer is effectively "cheaper than I can buy electricity from the local coal fired utility", but that is the reality. Nuclear costs about twice that.

Notice I'm paying retail. If you are going to compare wholesale prices to the $0.20 you typically have to multiply them by 3.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#350

Post by simion314 »

ben_w wrote: post #80
simion314 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> 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. Short days, but still enough to make a lot of juice in Italy. Scotland and Scandinavia get issues, but Italy's basically OK for winter: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=%28…

The real life is not as simple as you wish The energy I produce can only go to my neighbors, it can't be sent to a different region in the same village it is a grid limitation.

Also when the weather is bad it is bad in a big chunk of Europe, sure in the South they will probably have nicer weather.

What about the issue when everyone has solar? then who buys my extra production? Or if there is someone that can buy it because of too much solar the prices would be close to zero then the solar panels investment will not be worth it since you could be cheap energy from the people with solar panels when the weather is good.

My gut feeling is that 100% solar is stupid, it is like the 20-80 problem we see now a lot of growth since it is very profitable, when more grid investment is needed and profits will go down this growth will stop.

Post reply on HN