10 ms·

Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

232 points by geox 2y ago

badRNG 2y ago
To be very clear, the title refers to nuclear energy, which may not be immediately obvious given the current geopolitical climate.
- amarcheschi 2y ago
  I am not knowledgeable about nuclear energy, however, I would not be surprised if this reversing could have to do with having a nuclear pipeline - or at least a nuclear knowledge - already available in the country, in case things go south and there's need to develop own nukes
- snowwrestler 2y ago
  It’s obvious, given the current geopolitical climate, that this announcement is about more than electric power generation.
mg 2y ago
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?
- jacobp100 2y ago
  Solar is much cheaper than nuclear. Italian new builds need to add solar panels. Nuclear isn’t a bad option too. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket
  - ossobuco 2y ago
    Sure, but given that hypothetical new nuclear plants would become effective in a decade or more from now, and that we already have an energy crisis, one would expect Italy to first ramp up the fastest option (solar).
    - tigroferoce 2y ago
      Italy (and others) could (and should) do both. Only thinking in terms of cost is short vision IMO. What happens if in 20/30 years you need to dramatically ramp up the energy generation (maybe everyone will drive electric, maybe house heating will be electric, maybe someone will come up with a new tech that requires a huge amount of energy, ...) and you already covered most of the roofs? or panels and batteries are at their end of life and you need massive investments just to keep up with the status quo? I woulnd't go in a fight with a fist tied behing my back, and global warming is one of the biggest fights we must face.
      - ossobuco 2y ago
        I didn't say we shouldn't do both, just that since we are already in an energy crisis, ramping up solar very quickly should be a priority, compared to nuclear plants. Nuclear plants will improve the lives of our children, solar will improve our own lives. The problem is that I'm not hearing anything about solar investments from the Italian government. Another great move would be to stop the warmongering and to start buying gas from Russia, while we work on solar and nuclear.
      - dalyons 2y ago
        I agree in spirit, but given the massive cost premium of nuke power and the impossibility of insurance, the only way new nukes are going to get built in the west is via state guarantees /subsidies. That means higher taxes, or forcing citizens to pay much higher power rates for ~50 years. Both will be very unpopular, especially as green power continues to get cheaper and cheaper
  - datadeft 2y ago
    The major point here is that nuclear is controllable energy type while solar is not. So comparing only the price is apples to oranges comparison. Most human energy consumers need energy with a fixed rate and all physical metrics withing a tight margin. To prouduce that with only solar energy is impossible. This means you have to build other energy sources into the grid like gas turbines to be able to control the grid. So if you really want to compare energy prices than you have to look into the TCO. https://www.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/11q58pe/price_trends_of_wind_and_solar_vs_nuclear_over/ https://www.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/11q58pe/price_trend...
- frafra 2y ago
  Price != cost/value. You can produce cheap electricity at noon, which would have little value.
  - jonplackett 2y ago
    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
    - simion314 2y ago
      >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.
      - ben_w 2y ago
        > 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=%28sunrise%2C+Rome%2C+21+Dec+2024%29%2C+%28sunset%2C+Rome%2C+21+Dec+2024%29 https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=%28sunrise%2C+Rome%2C+2... And: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S096014812100029X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09601... > we can't store the energy from summer for winter and also resist for say 2 weeks of snow and clouds You, personally, can't store 2 weeks of energy (though it's closer than you may expect, 1 person-week of Italian average electrical consumption is ~= 1 EV battery*). But you personally don't have to, transmission to another part of the country (or continent) has a huge impact on how much storage you need. Basically, this problem is known, it's not all that difficult to work around — everything on the scale of "national power supply" is expensive and has pros and cons, PV isn't particularly remarkable in the scale or cost of those pros and cons even with current solutions and assuming no R&D effort can improve the trade-offs, they're just different than the pros and cons of the other options. * https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=%28%28%28300+terawatt-hours+%2F+1+year%29+%2F+population+Italy%29+*+1+week+*+1+person%29+in+kWh https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=%28%28%28300+terawatt-h...
- ossobuco 2y ago
  Probably the fact that we should first admit we have something to learn from China?
  - ReptileMan 2y ago
    China spans couple of timezones, Italy is a boot.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  > Isn't the price of a KW of solar panels similar to the price of a KW of nuclear power these days? Solar panels are down to something like $0.20/W, a factor of 50 cheaper than a nuclear power plant. Solar panels are only a fraction of the cost of a solar installation though. Utility-scale solar is around $1/W, a factor of 10 below nuclear. Adjusting for capacity factor, solar is still several times cheaper than nuclear (and has lower operating cost).
  - patall 2y ago
    And takes weeks to plan and set up. Compared to decades.
- FredrikSE 2y ago
  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.
  - baliex 2y ago
    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 https://archive.is/p9qsS
    - Numerlor 2y ago
      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
      - pfdietz 2y ago
        Covering winter with renewables would use longer term storage than batteries, for example hydrogen.
    - cinntaile 2y ago
      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.
- patall 2y ago
  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.
  - amarcheschi 2y ago
    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/geothermal-energy-tuscany-sustainable-development#:~:text=With%20nearly%206%20billion%20KWh,the%20renewable%20energy%20produced%20there. https://www.enelgreenpower.com/stories/articles/2024/10/geot... https://www.lanazione.it/cronaca/geotermia-patto-regione-enel-la-toscana-b7a538f6 https://www.lanazione.it/cronaca/geotermia-patto-regione-ene...
    - stavros 2y ago
      Are you sure it was Larderello? Are you sure it wasn't... hell?
      - amarcheschi 2y ago
        It definitely resonates a lot, especially since that area has been known for centuries for that type of geothermal activity. I don't know whether Dante visited larderello, but next time I meet a local guide I'll ask them
  - est31 2y ago
    Italy is one of the best countries in the EU to do solar in. https://solargis.com/resources/free-maps-and-gis-data?locality=europe https://solargis.com/resources/free-maps-and-gis-data?locali...
- surgical_fire 2y ago
  It doesn't matter. As far as I am concerned, self sufficiency comes before price concerns. Nuclear is very safe and reliable. By all means, EU countries should keep investing in Solar, Wind, Geotermal, etc. but that should be done alongside Nuclear.
  - willvarfar 2y ago
    > Nuclear is very safe and reliable. How do we stop fukushima-like disasters?
    - stavros 2y ago
      Mainly by not building reactors designed in the 1960s.
      - Ekaros 2y ago
        Better and more modern designs with sensible passive features and so on will solve a lot of the problems compared to these ancient plants.
        pfdietz 2y ago
        These more modern designs don't solve the primary problem of nuclear, which is cost.
        mpweiher 2y ago
        That is not really the case. Nuclear power is extremely cost effective, even with the current plants. The individual plants are currently expensive, because they are large and produce huge amounts of power. Since that means you only have a fairly small number of plants, that means the risk is higher than preferable. However, even with existing designs, building a common design multiple times and overlapping the build times brings down risk, build-time and costs tremendously. The German Konvois were built for DM 5.8 billion in less than 6 years, and we were just getting started. China is currently building their version of the passively safe Westinghouse AP-1000, the CAP-1400, in 5 years for $ 3.5 billion.
- ben_w 2y ago
  > Isn't the price of a KW of solar panels similar to the price of a KW of nuclear power these days? Solar with battery backup is about that, globally, on average. But: the averages have sufficiently broad variance that there's places where one wins, and places where the other wins. PV+battery is between 75-140 USD/MWh; whereas new nuclear is, depending on who I ask, any of 81-82, 65, or 141–221 USD/MWh.
  - throwaway48476 2y ago
    There's no reason to believe nuear couldn't benefit from economies of scale.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      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.
      - throwaway48476 2y ago
        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.
        ben_w 2y ago
        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).
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        throwaway48476 2y ago
- wonderwonder 2y ago
  Government can centralize the cost of nuclear. All goes to 1 contractor who builds it. With solar, every house is a different size so each house will have a different cost. Pretty hard political sell to tell your voters you are going to give more to the rich because they have bigger houses. Totally makes sense from a "well they use and pay for more power" perspective but a really hard sell politically. Plus renters get nothing.
  - est31 2y ago
    Indeed rooftop solar is something that rich people benefit from the most: it's a fun gimmick that people who own houses can use to dodge taxes and network fees. The most cost effective solar deployments are larger industrial setups due to the economics of scale. From a national economy point of view, rooftop solar makes less sense. Someone still needs to pay for the network after all, it just gets onto someone else's shoulders.
    - Ekaros 2y ago
      The direction where market must go on that is clear. Higher standing charges for grid connection, more variable market rates. And maybe also more variable transfer rates. Meaning that roof top solar will get less economical as true costs will shift to times when energy is pulled from the grid. Home batteries will shift some of this, but if you want power after they are dark and everyone else want it too it will be expensive.
- bsza 2y ago
  Personally, I will install batteries in my cellar when they no longer spontaneously burst into flames that are impossible to put out. But this shouldn’t even be a requirement as long as you can feed it into the grid.
  - bee_rider 2y ago
    Look into LiFePO4 batteries
  - bmelton 2y ago
    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.
    - bsza 2y ago
      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).
      - bmelton 2y ago
        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.)
- kevsamuel 2y ago
  Where and when? For how long? Does it include dealing with wastes? Does it include powerlines, maintenance and land? It's not a universal answer.
- himinlomax 2y ago
  What's the price of solar power at night?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - rstuart4133 2y ago
    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.
  - adrianN 2y ago
    Batteries cost something like $150/kWh and live for a few thousand cycles, so power from batteries costs a couple of cents more than the power used to charge the batteries.
- pjc50 2y ago
  Never mind the cost, it has taken the UK over a decade from initial decision to not yet completing Hinkley Point C. Nuclear is really slow to build. You can get a solid decade of carbon-free electricity out of solar panels in that time. Panels today. Batteries as available. Nuclear eventually - maybe. (people will respond with "what about SMRs", to which I will ask "what's the shortest time from decision to online that a SMR project has achieved?")
- boringg 2y ago
  Different products -- nuclear provides grid stability, power quality and dedicated baseload power. Rooftop solar provides some residential power but not helpful for the grid at large -- requires upgrades to the local infrastructure and decreases reliability. All manageable but people constantly think of power in terms of how much is $/kwh - there is soo many more important qualities to powering the grid than strictly cost.
Etheryte 2y ago
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.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > 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_Plant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_P...
  - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
    Russia wants to control its neighbour Ukraine and also is a supplier of nuclear tech to other countries. It's not guaranteed that every geopolitical rival would have those considerations when deciding whether to care about, or plan to actively attempt, triggering a nuclear meltdown in your nation.
- est31 2y ago
  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.
  - cinntaile 2y ago
    The fuel comes primarily from Kazachstan, Canada and Australia. Edit: Parent meant enriched uranium, not ore so this comment is not relevant.
  - agumonkey 2y ago
    Aren't there other ore sources ? I think nuclear powered countries diversified inputs.
bilekas 2y ago
Nuclear isn’t something to be afraid of, in fact it’s a natural progression. It’s quite safe when done right, it’s cheap, there is the disposal question but in relation to anything else it’s pretty manageable. If nuclear was a bigger resource we might even see better research into better methods of disposal.
- datadeft 2y ago
  THe green narrative fromt the 70s is still strong today. Many of my friends still believe that nuclear is the most dangerous source of energy even though the per TWh metrics are pretty clear.
- Mashimo 2y ago
  Italy has solved the nuclear waste disposal problem. They ship it to Somalia or sink it in old ships. It's quite cheap as well.
  - account42 2y ago
    And that's already the commonly accepted solution for pollution from other energy sources!
- notTooFarGone 2y ago
  > it’s cheap yea after you build the damn thing maybe. Good luck with that. There is a reason 90% of new added capacity is renewable and it's not because of the environment.
- otherme123 2y ago
  How much nuclear? The nuclear lobby "recommends" 10-15% of the mix, but when a country has that (Spain 20%) they keep asking for more. Also... nuclear cheap? Come on, it's the most expensive energy source of the mix, except maybe peak gas. Nuclear is big in France, has always been big and favoured. Still no "better research" and no magic disposal, after decades of investment. We are asked for religious levels of faith but they don't deliver.
aw4y 2y ago
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)
- amarcheschi 2y ago
  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
- torginus 2y ago
  National stereotypes... Italy's the 3rd largest economy in the EU, and 8th in the world, with an advanced technology sector to boot. And if they somehow cannot figure it out, their French neighbors most assuredly can.
  - aw4y 2y ago
    not exactly a stereotype, just facts. for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponte_Morandi_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponte_Morandi_collapse and also check what happens (now more than ever) everytime there's a big rain in a lot of italian places. I'm very concerned about this.
    - Recursing 2y ago
      Bridge failures regularly happen in many countries, including France and South Korea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bridge_failures#2000%E2%80%93present https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bridge_failures#2000%E...
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
fteem 2y ago
Good.
Almondsetat 2y ago
So basically "we are deciding on how to organize how to begin deciding how to approach nuclear in the future"
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
vanviegen 2y ago
One has to wonder if a desire to develop nuclear weapons may have something to do with this, in light of recent events...
- sph 2y ago
  As the 4th richest country in Europe, after Germany, UK, and France, it does make a lot of sense.
- arlort 2y ago
  No, just weird timing but this has been floating around for a while
littlestymaar 2y ago
Last time Italy decided to re-open the topic of nuclear energy, we ended up with the Fukushima disaster. The last time before that was Chernobyl. A nuclear accident in the US due to deregulation would be fitting with the current mood, but I'd rather not to, please.
- mandmandam 2y ago
  Do you know how many people die because of coal plants every year? It's far, far more than nuclear per unit [0]. Nuclear power is nearly a thousand times less murderous. 0 - https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...
  - arlort 2y ago
    The comment you're replying to is pretty clearly making a joke
    - account42 2y ago
      Perhaps but it's also a common sentiment and also something that sways illogical voters. Both times mentioned by GP the referendums turned out against nuclear not because factual statistics about safety but because anti-nuclear activists were able to use those very public accidents to scare people.
  - littlestymaar 2y ago
    First of all, this is obviously a joke, but in all seriousness there's more to nuclear accident than just the immediate danger it poses to people (which is, as you point out, very low). My wife is a nuclear engineer (in France), and I'd have been the same hadn't Fukushima killed the job prospects in the field for almost a decade, so personally I would rather not have the “nuclear is too dangerous, let's kill this industry” once again. Also, even if nuclear energy is very far from deadly in its day to day operations, nuclear accident have a lasting impact on the region near the plant, with people having to leave their houses and so on, so I'm not wishing that for anyone. (Living 8 km away from an nuclear plant makes me quite sensitive to this aspect, obviously).
miklosz 2y ago
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).
- n3storm 2y ago
  So you think Americans honestly think nuclearly destroying Europe will give them peace?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > you think Americans honestly think nuclearly destroying Europe will give them peace? American here. It’s becoming clear that a sizeable section of our electorate only respects nuclear sovereignty.
- gpderetta 2y ago
  Can you effectively have nuclear weapons without a civilian nuclear power infra?
  - mrweasel 2y ago
    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.
    - gpderetta 2y ago
      I don't know how effective are NK nuclear weapons, but Israel would definitely count. But according to WP[1], Israel has "research reactors" which might or might not have military use. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Israel
snowwrestler 2y ago
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 weapons on hold per U.S. request.
- nazgob 2y ago
  Korea is probably the list as well.
- ttoinou 2y ago
  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
  - mpweiher 2y ago
    Actually: it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...
    - lovegrenoble 2y ago
      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.
      - Hnrobert42 2y ago
        I don't understand why you are so animated by this issue. What am I missing? Propaganda about what?
      - mpweiher 2y ago
caseyy 2y ago
Considering the insane business and government bureaucracy in Italy, I can’t wait for this to happen within the coming centuries.
anshumankmr 2y ago
Based...
sph 2y ago
As an Italian abroad, this came out of the blue and I was not expecting this change of mind, at all. There have been two referendums on nuclear energy in Italy: one just after the disaster of Chernobyl. They tried again decades later, in 2011; just after the disaster of Fukushima. The result was of course overwhelmingly negative both times. This is great news, and will hopefully lower the cost of electricity that we mostly import from France.
- MortyWaves 2y ago
  Who's brilliantly dumb idea was it to have the only two referendums ever also immediately after a disaster? That is what you'd do if you want an overwhelmingly biased referendum playing off people's rash and short term panic based decision making.
  - sph 2y ago
    > Who's brilliantly dumb idea was it to have the only two referendums ever also immediately after a disaster? Well-timed populists.
    - kome 2y ago
      > Well-timed populists. not really. The referendum was planned long before Fukushima, but then Fukushima happened at just the right time, reminding voters just in time to vote against nuclear.
      - sph 2y ago
        I stand corrected. They indeed started collecting signatures for the second referendum in spring 2010.
  - kome 2y ago
    The second referendum had been planned long before, and then the Fukushima disaster happened, just a couple of weeks before the vote. A stark reminder that nuclear energy is not safe. By the way, Italy had several nuclear reactors, but they were shut down after the first referendum.
km144 2y ago
The current US Administration does not understand the basic mechanics of American hegemony. I think Trump truly believes that we are getting ripped off and stand to gain nothing from our current position with the EU and other allies. But if you take away the incentives and guarantees they'll just turn their back on you and seek their own protection—it has to be symbiotic.
- 1I3zafs9 2y ago
  I fully agree that the US benefits from its hegemony and that Trump's statements that the US is getting ripped off are completely false. But what game is currently being played by the Trump administration? He told the EU to be self-sufficient in defense spending, insults them and Ukraine to awaken their pride. He (temporarily) cuts off public ties with Zelensky. The press conference with the row at the end actually ended with Trump winking at the audience and Zelensky putting his thumb up. That part is cut out of many videos. EU leaders scramble to put up the type of peace plans that they know will be refused. What if all is prearranged and Trump just wants to dump Biden's conflict on the EU, at least temporarily until everyone has rearmed? Trump has said a lot, including lifting sanctions on Russia. But he extended the sanctions. He did halt arms shipments to Ukraine either to pressure Ukraine or the EU. The EU should negotiate with Russia without the US, get a viable peace plan and drop sanctions. Then we'll see if Trump's behavior is more than theater.
ZeroGravitas 2y ago
They should focus on their modern renewables buildout, they've got half compared with Spain and Portugal (20% Vs 40%). With some existing geothermal and hydro in their mix they should be further along. If you want to be cynical than this latest move could just be the same as Australia's right wing party's pretence about nuclear. At least in Australia it's local fossil fuels they'd be burning not imported gas.
J_Shelby_J 2y ago
The superpower (America) is dead. Long live the superpower (EU).
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

232 points by geox 2y ago

To be very clear, the title refers to nuclear energy, which may not be immediately obvious given the current geopolitical climate.

amarcheschi 2y ago
I am not knowledgeable about nuclear energy, however, I would not be surprised if this reversing could have to do with having a nuclear pipeline - or at least a nuclear knowledge - already available in the country, in case things go south and there's need to develop own nukes
snowwrestler 2y ago
It’s obvious, given the current geopolitical climate, that this announcement is about more than electric power generation.

mg 2y ago

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?

jacobp100 2y ago
Solar is much cheaper than nuclear. Italian new builds need to add solar panels. Nuclear isn’t a bad option too. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket
- ossobuco 2y ago
  Sure, but given that hypothetical new nuclear plants would become effective in a decade or more from now, and that we already have an energy crisis, one would expect Italy to first ramp up the fastest option (solar).
  - tigroferoce 2y ago
    Italy (and others) could (and should) do both. Only thinking in terms of cost is short vision IMO. What happens if in 20/30 years you need to dramatically ramp up the energy generation (maybe everyone will drive electric, maybe house heating will be electric, maybe someone will come up with a new tech that requires a huge amount of energy, ...) and you already covered most of the roofs? or panels and batteries are at their end of life and you need massive investments just to keep up with the status quo? I woulnd't go in a fight with a fist tied behing my back, and global warming is one of the biggest fights we must face.
    - ossobuco 2y ago
      I didn't say we shouldn't do both, just that since we are already in an energy crisis, ramping up solar very quickly should be a priority, compared to nuclear plants. Nuclear plants will improve the lives of our children, solar will improve our own lives. The problem is that I'm not hearing anything about solar investments from the Italian government. Another great move would be to stop the warmongering and to start buying gas from Russia, while we work on solar and nuclear.
    - dalyons 2y ago
      I agree in spirit, but given the massive cost premium of nuke power and the impossibility of insurance, the only way new nukes are going to get built in the west is via state guarantees /subsidies. That means higher taxes, or forcing citizens to pay much higher power rates for ~50 years. Both will be very unpopular, especially as green power continues to get cheaper and cheaper
- datadeft 2y ago
  The major point here is that nuclear is controllable energy type while solar is not. So comparing only the price is apples to oranges comparison. Most human energy consumers need energy with a fixed rate and all physical metrics withing a tight margin. To prouduce that with only solar energy is impossible. This means you have to build other energy sources into the grid like gas turbines to be able to control the grid. So if you really want to compare energy prices than you have to look into the TCO. https://www.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/11q58pe/price_trends_of_wind_and_solar_vs_nuclear_over/ https://www.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/11q58pe/price_trend...
frafra 2y ago
Price != cost/value. You can produce cheap electricity at noon, which would have little value.
- jonplackett 2y ago
  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
  - simion314 2y ago
    >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.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      > 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=%28sunrise%2C+Rome%2C+21+Dec+2024%29%2C+%28sunset%2C+Rome%2C+21+Dec+2024%29 https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=%28sunrise%2C+Rome%2C+2... And: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S096014812100029X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09601... > we can't store the energy from summer for winter and also resist for say 2 weeks of snow and clouds You, personally, can't store 2 weeks of energy (though it's closer than you may expect, 1 person-week of Italian average electrical consumption is ~= 1 EV battery*). But you personally don't have to, transmission to another part of the country (or continent) has a huge impact on how much storage you need. Basically, this problem is known, it's not all that difficult to work around — everything on the scale of "national power supply" is expensive and has pros and cons, PV isn't particularly remarkable in the scale or cost of those pros and cons even with current solutions and assuming no R&D effort can improve the trade-offs, they're just different than the pros and cons of the other options. * https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=%28%28%28300+terawatt-hours+%2F+1+year%29+%2F+population+Italy%29+*+1+week+*+1+person%29+in+kWh https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=%28%28%28300+terawatt-h...
ossobuco 2y ago
Probably the fact that we should first admit we have something to learn from China?
- ReptileMan 2y ago
  China spans couple of timezones, Italy is a boot.
pfdietz 2y ago
> Isn't the price of a KW of solar panels similar to the price of a KW of nuclear power these days? Solar panels are down to something like $0.20/W, a factor of 50 cheaper than a nuclear power plant. Solar panels are only a fraction of the cost of a solar installation though. Utility-scale solar is around $1/W, a factor of 10 below nuclear. Adjusting for capacity factor, solar is still several times cheaper than nuclear (and has lower operating cost).
- patall 2y ago
  And takes weeks to plan and set up. Compared to decades.
FredrikSE 2y ago
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.
- baliex 2y ago
  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 https://archive.is/p9qsS
  - Numerlor 2y ago
    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
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      Covering winter with renewables would use longer term storage than batteries, for example hydrogen.
  - cinntaile 2y ago
    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.
patall 2y ago
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.
- amarcheschi 2y ago
  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/geothermal-energy-tuscany-sustainable-development#:~:text=With%20nearly%206%20billion%20KWh,the%20renewable%20energy%20produced%20there. https://www.enelgreenpower.com/stories/articles/2024/10/geot... https://www.lanazione.it/cronaca/geotermia-patto-regione-enel-la-toscana-b7a538f6 https://www.lanazione.it/cronaca/geotermia-patto-regione-ene...
  - stavros 2y ago
    Are you sure it was Larderello? Are you sure it wasn't... hell?
    - amarcheschi 2y ago
      It definitely resonates a lot, especially since that area has been known for centuries for that type of geothermal activity. I don't know whether Dante visited larderello, but next time I meet a local guide I'll ask them
- est31 2y ago
  Italy is one of the best countries in the EU to do solar in. https://solargis.com/resources/free-maps-and-gis-data?locality=europe https://solargis.com/resources/free-maps-and-gis-data?locali...
surgical_fire 2y ago
It doesn't matter. As far as I am concerned, self sufficiency comes before price concerns. Nuclear is very safe and reliable. By all means, EU countries should keep investing in Solar, Wind, Geotermal, etc. but that should be done alongside Nuclear.
- willvarfar 2y ago
  > Nuclear is very safe and reliable. How do we stop fukushima-like disasters?
  - stavros 2y ago
    Mainly by not building reactors designed in the 1960s.
    - Ekaros 2y ago
      Better and more modern designs with sensible passive features and so on will solve a lot of the problems compared to these ancient plants.
      - pfdietz 2y ago
        These more modern designs don't solve the primary problem of nuclear, which is cost.
        mpweiher 2y ago
        That is not really the case. Nuclear power is extremely cost effective, even with the current plants. The individual plants are currently expensive, because they are large and produce huge amounts of power. Since that means you only have a fairly small number of plants, that means the risk is higher than preferable. However, even with existing designs, building a common design multiple times and overlapping the build times brings down risk, build-time and costs tremendously. The German Konvois were built for DM 5.8 billion in less than 6 years, and we were just getting started. China is currently building their version of the passively safe Westinghouse AP-1000, the CAP-1400, in 5 years for $ 3.5 billion.
ben_w 2y ago
> Isn't the price of a KW of solar panels similar to the price of a KW of nuclear power these days? Solar with battery backup is about that, globally, on average. But: the averages have sufficiently broad variance that there's places where one wins, and places where the other wins. PV+battery is between 75-140 USD/MWh; whereas new nuclear is, depending on who I ask, any of 81-82, 65, or 141–221 USD/MWh.
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  There's no reason to believe nuear couldn't benefit from economies of scale.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    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.
    - throwaway48476 2y ago
      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.
      - ben_w 2y ago
        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).
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        throwaway48476 2y ago
wonderwonder 2y ago
Government can centralize the cost of nuclear. All goes to 1 contractor who builds it. With solar, every house is a different size so each house will have a different cost. Pretty hard political sell to tell your voters you are going to give more to the rich because they have bigger houses. Totally makes sense from a "well they use and pay for more power" perspective but a really hard sell politically. Plus renters get nothing.
- est31 2y ago
  Indeed rooftop solar is something that rich people benefit from the most: it's a fun gimmick that people who own houses can use to dodge taxes and network fees. The most cost effective solar deployments are larger industrial setups due to the economics of scale. From a national economy point of view, rooftop solar makes less sense. Someone still needs to pay for the network after all, it just gets onto someone else's shoulders.
  - Ekaros 2y ago
    The direction where market must go on that is clear. Higher standing charges for grid connection, more variable market rates. And maybe also more variable transfer rates. Meaning that roof top solar will get less economical as true costs will shift to times when energy is pulled from the grid. Home batteries will shift some of this, but if you want power after they are dark and everyone else want it too it will be expensive.
bsza 2y ago
Personally, I will install batteries in my cellar when they no longer spontaneously burst into flames that are impossible to put out. But this shouldn’t even be a requirement as long as you can feed it into the grid.
- bee_rider 2y ago
  Look into LiFePO4 batteries
- bmelton 2y ago
  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.
  - bsza 2y ago
    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).
    - bmelton 2y ago
      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.)
kevsamuel 2y ago
Where and when? For how long? Does it include dealing with wastes? Does it include powerlines, maintenance and land? It's not a universal answer.
himinlomax 2y ago
What's the price of solar power at night?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- rstuart4133 2y ago
  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.
- adrianN 2y ago
  Batteries cost something like $150/kWh and live for a few thousand cycles, so power from batteries costs a couple of cents more than the power used to charge the batteries.
pjc50 2y ago
Never mind the cost, it has taken the UK over a decade from initial decision to not yet completing Hinkley Point C. Nuclear is really slow to build. You can get a solid decade of carbon-free electricity out of solar panels in that time. Panels today. Batteries as available. Nuclear eventually - maybe. (people will respond with "what about SMRs", to which I will ask "what's the shortest time from decision to online that a SMR project has achieved?")
boringg 2y ago
Different products -- nuclear provides grid stability, power quality and dedicated baseload power. Rooftop solar provides some residential power but not helpful for the grid at large -- requires upgrades to the local infrastructure and decreases reliability. All manageable but people constantly think of power in terms of how much is $/kwh - there is soo many more important qualities to powering the grid than strictly cost.

Etheryte 2y ago

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.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> 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_Plant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_P...
- ZeroGravitas 2y ago
  Russia wants to control its neighbour Ukraine and also is a supplier of nuclear tech to other countries. It's not guaranteed that every geopolitical rival would have those considerations when deciding whether to care about, or plan to actively attempt, triggering a nuclear meltdown in your nation.
est31 2y ago
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.
- cinntaile 2y ago
  The fuel comes primarily from Kazachstan, Canada and Australia. Edit: Parent meant enriched uranium, not ore so this comment is not relevant.
- agumonkey 2y ago
  Aren't there other ore sources ? I think nuclear powered countries diversified inputs.

bilekas 2y ago

Nuclear isn’t something to be afraid of, in fact it’s a natural progression. It’s quite safe when done right, it’s cheap, there is the disposal question but in relation to anything else it’s pretty manageable. If nuclear was a bigger resource we might even see better research into better methods of disposal.

datadeft 2y ago
THe green narrative fromt the 70s is still strong today. Many of my friends still believe that nuclear is the most dangerous source of energy even though the per TWh metrics are pretty clear.
Mashimo 2y ago
Italy has solved the nuclear waste disposal problem. They ship it to Somalia or sink it in old ships. It's quite cheap as well.
- account42 2y ago
  And that's already the commonly accepted solution for pollution from other energy sources!
notTooFarGone 2y ago
> it’s cheap yea after you build the damn thing maybe. Good luck with that. There is a reason 90% of new added capacity is renewable and it's not because of the environment.
otherme123 2y ago
How much nuclear? The nuclear lobby "recommends" 10-15% of the mix, but when a country has that (Spain 20%) they keep asking for more. Also... nuclear cheap? Come on, it's the most expensive energy source of the mix, except maybe peak gas. Nuclear is big in France, has always been big and favoured. Still no "better research" and no magic disposal, after decades of investment. We are asked for religious levels of faith but they don't deliver.

aw4y 2y ago

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)

amarcheschi 2y ago
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
torginus 2y ago
National stereotypes... Italy's the 3rd largest economy in the EU, and 8th in the world, with an advanced technology sector to boot. And if they somehow cannot figure it out, their French neighbors most assuredly can.
- aw4y 2y ago
  not exactly a stereotype, just facts. for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponte_Morandi_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponte_Morandi_collapse and also check what happens (now more than ever) everytime there's a big rain in a lot of italian places. I'm very concerned about this.
  - Recursing 2y ago
    Bridge failures regularly happen in many countries, including France and South Korea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bridge_failures#2000%E2%80%93present https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bridge_failures#2000%E...
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

fteem 2y ago

Good.

Almondsetat 2y ago

So basically "we are deciding on how to organize how to begin deciding how to approach nuclear in the future"

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

vanviegen 2y ago

One has to wonder if a desire to develop nuclear weapons may have something to do with this, in light of recent events...

sph 2y ago
As the 4th richest country in Europe, after Germany, UK, and France, it does make a lot of sense.
arlort 2y ago
No, just weird timing but this has been floating around for a while

littlestymaar 2y ago

Last time Italy decided to re-open the topic of nuclear energy, we ended up with the Fukushima disaster. The last time before that was Chernobyl. A nuclear accident in the US due to deregulation would be fitting with the current mood, but I'd rather not to, please.

mandmandam 2y ago
Do you know how many people die because of coal plants every year? It's far, far more than nuclear per unit [0]. Nuclear power is nearly a thousand times less murderous. 0 - https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...
- arlort 2y ago
  The comment you're replying to is pretty clearly making a joke
  - account42 2y ago
    Perhaps but it's also a common sentiment and also something that sways illogical voters. Both times mentioned by GP the referendums turned out against nuclear not because factual statistics about safety but because anti-nuclear activists were able to use those very public accidents to scare people.
- littlestymaar 2y ago
  First of all, this is obviously a joke, but in all seriousness there's more to nuclear accident than just the immediate danger it poses to people (which is, as you point out, very low). My wife is a nuclear engineer (in France), and I'd have been the same hadn't Fukushima killed the job prospects in the field for almost a decade, so personally I would rather not have the “nuclear is too dangerous, let's kill this industry” once again. Also, even if nuclear energy is very far from deadly in its day to day operations, nuclear accident have a lasting impact on the region near the plant, with people having to leave their houses and so on, so I'm not wishing that for anyone. (Living 8 km away from an nuclear plant makes me quite sensitive to this aspect, obviously).

miklosz 2y ago

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).

n3storm 2y ago
So you think Americans honestly think nuclearly destroying Europe will give them peace?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > you think Americans honestly think nuclearly destroying Europe will give them peace? American here. It’s becoming clear that a sizeable section of our electorate only respects nuclear sovereignty.
gpderetta 2y ago
Can you effectively have nuclear weapons without a civilian nuclear power infra?
- mrweasel 2y ago
  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.
  - gpderetta 2y ago
    I don't know how effective are NK nuclear weapons, but Israel would definitely count. But according to WP[1], Israel has "research reactors" which might or might not have military use. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Israel

snowwrestler 2y ago

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 weapons on hold per U.S. request.

nazgob 2y ago
Korea is probably the list as well.
ttoinou 2y ago
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
- mpweiher 2y ago
  Actually: it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...
  - lovegrenoble 2y ago
    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.
    - Hnrobert42 2y ago
      I don't understand why you are so animated by this issue. What am I missing? Propaganda about what?
    - mpweiher 2y ago

caseyy 2y ago

Considering the insane business and government bureaucracy in Italy, I can’t wait for this to happen within the coming centuries.

anshumankmr 2y ago

Based...

sph 2y ago

As an Italian abroad, this came out of the blue and I was not expecting this change of mind, at all. There have been two referendums on nuclear energy in Italy: one just after the disaster of Chernobyl. They tried again decades later, in 2011; just after the disaster of Fukushima. The result was of course overwhelmingly negative both times. This is great news, and will hopefully lower the cost of electricity that we mostly import from France.

MortyWaves 2y ago
Who's brilliantly dumb idea was it to have the only two referendums ever also immediately after a disaster? That is what you'd do if you want an overwhelmingly biased referendum playing off people's rash and short term panic based decision making.
- sph 2y ago
  > Who's brilliantly dumb idea was it to have the only two referendums ever also immediately after a disaster? Well-timed populists.
  - kome 2y ago
    > Well-timed populists. not really. The referendum was planned long before Fukushima, but then Fukushima happened at just the right time, reminding voters just in time to vote against nuclear.
    - sph 2y ago
      I stand corrected. They indeed started collecting signatures for the second referendum in spring 2010.
- kome 2y ago
  The second referendum had been planned long before, and then the Fukushima disaster happened, just a couple of weeks before the vote. A stark reminder that nuclear energy is not safe. By the way, Italy had several nuclear reactors, but they were shut down after the first referendum.

km144 2y ago

The current US Administration does not understand the basic mechanics of American hegemony. I think Trump truly believes that we are getting ripped off and stand to gain nothing from our current position with the EU and other allies. But if you take away the incentives and guarantees they'll just turn their back on you and seek their own protection—it has to be symbiotic.

1I3zafs9 2y ago
I fully agree that the US benefits from its hegemony and that Trump's statements that the US is getting ripped off are completely false. But what game is currently being played by the Trump administration? He told the EU to be self-sufficient in defense spending, insults them and Ukraine to awaken their pride. He (temporarily) cuts off public ties with Zelensky. The press conference with the row at the end actually ended with Trump winking at the audience and Zelensky putting his thumb up. That part is cut out of many videos. EU leaders scramble to put up the type of peace plans that they know will be refused. What if all is prearranged and Trump just wants to dump Biden's conflict on the EU, at least temporarily until everyone has rearmed? Trump has said a lot, including lifting sanctions on Russia. But he extended the sanctions. He did halt arms shipments to Ukraine either to pressure Ukraine or the EU. The EU should negotiate with Russia without the US, get a viable peace plan and drop sanctions. Then we'll see if Trump's behavior is more than theater.

ZeroGravitas 2y ago

They should focus on their modern renewables buildout, they've got half compared with Spain and Portugal (20% Vs 40%). With some existing geothermal and hydro in their mix they should be further along. If you want to be cynical than this latest move could just be the same as Australia's right wing party's pretence about nuclear. At least in Australia it's local fossil fuels they'd be burning not imported gas.

J_Shelby_J 2y ago

The superpower (America) is dead. Long live the superpower (EU).

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]