Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance • Hacker News Board

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#391

Post by ben_w » Thu, Mar 06, 2025, 11:09 AM UTC

sras-me wrote: post #270

pjc50 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Puti…

>They can always just stop? They can, but that is what I am wondering about. Will a desperate Putin think he can get away with a nuclear first strike on Ukraine? If he thinks he can, why stop?

I won't claim to be able to read Putin's mind, but:

Considering that the Russian government continues to sell this invasion to its people as a "special military operation" and bans calling it a "war", what impact would using nuclear weapons have on the internal politics of Russia?

I also invite you to consider the converse: Ukraine is already asking if it made a mistake by giving up its nuclear weapons, and I have heard plausible claims they could construct a nuclear device within a few months… a few months ago.

The US withdrawing all support, may well result in Ukraine making their own nuclear weapons — and attacking Russia with them to make the point, given that Putin seems to have great difficulty understanding that the Ukrainian people don't want him.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#392

Post by wizzwizz4 » Thu, Mar 06, 2025, 12:31 PM UTC

klooney wrote: post #348

account42 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... 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.

There's also electrocution risk with solar panels. Wind turbines, you can disconnect the generator: solar panels you can't.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#393

Post by rhubinak » Fri, Mar 07, 2025, 3:11 PM UTC

throw0101a wrote: post #380

rhubinak wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's cheap. Russia needs money to wage war so it sells stuff. Again, nobody is wholly dependent on Russia.

> Because it's cheap. I doubt that the US is buying from Russia—you know, the country/government which it threw sanctions on in all sorts of ways—because "it's cheap". Recently a ban on importation was started, and it included a couple of billion for more processing facilities in the US: * https://archive.is/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/14/climat... It's a supply chain issue that took some time to sort out: * http…

Also, that uranium could have come from pre-war contracts. Anyway, I think we're in agreement:

* There are uranium enrichment facilities outside Russia, even in Europe

* There's uranium outside Russia, even in Europe (look at Czechia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_r...)

So, let's build a plant.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#394

Post by legulere » Sat, Mar 08, 2025, 8:10 AM UTC

rhubinak wrote: post #318

legulere wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s raw uranium ore. Uranium undergoes several refinement steps. In each Russia has an enormous market share.

Not true by skimming the 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.

Before uranium enrichment comes conversion to Uranium Hexafluoride. For instance the German uranium enrichment facility (biggest one in Europe) gets Uranium Hexafluoride from Russia.

Also a list of countries operating enrichment facilities does not say anything about capacity (Russia 50%) or market share (Russia 44%).

https://www.enerdata.net/publications/executive-briefing/ura...

The reality is that both the US and Europe are dependent on Russian uranium services, with the biggest dependency in Eastern Europe for fuel rods for Soviet-style Reactors. It's slowly changing, but will probably take decades.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#395

Post by pfdietz » Sat, Mar 08, 2025, 5:42 PM UTC

mpweiher wrote: post #290

pfdietz wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Charity ≠ one side of a quid-pro-quo was worthless. The US gave/gives something that is fairly easy for it to provide, and valuable to the other side. In return the US receives something that is of great value to it and fairly easy for the other side to provide (as long as the US keeps its side of the bargain). If US security guarantees turn out to be worthless, you will see a lot more nuclear powers as well as a dra…

It's charity. The US spent the equivalent of many trillions of current dollars on nuclear weapons and delivery systems, and those under the US nuclear umbrella didn't have to. Withdrawal of that umbrella will mean these countries will then have to pony up money to replace it.

What did the US receive in return for this? Gratitude isn't worth much.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#396

Post by disgruntledphd2 » Mon, Mar 10, 2025, 10:01 AM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #384

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because nuclear doesn't emit carbon, and can be used for base load, particularly when it's not windy or sunny. Honestly, we need to stop burning carbon and nuclear can help with this.

If you build enough nuclear capacity to run the country when the renewables don't produce anything you might as well run the country the whole time on nuclear. Building a nuclear plant and then using it at 10% capacity is an egregious waste of money. Literally any storage technology is cheaper.

Sure, but my understanding is that the scale of storage available is the problem.

And like, I'd prefer to live in a world where we have far too much energy than far too little.

Note also that you can use nuclear/renewables to make hydrogen to potentially store more energy.