Italy to reintroduce nuclear power by 2030
Italy to reintroduce nuclear power by 2030
The country’s ministerial council reversed an anti-nuclear stance solidified by referendums in 1987 and 2011.
Meanwhile, Italy, one of the sunniest countries in EU, at about 11 % solar production. Spain is at 17 %, Greece at 19 %. Not so sunny Germany is at 12 %. Not sunny at all NL is at 17 %...
Priorities
Damn straight. Its all about development priorities!
The strategy focuses on advanced technologies, including Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), microreactors, and fourth-generation fission technology. The plan also includes investments in nuclear fusion, reflecting a long-term commitment to sustainable energy development.
Of course, the most hyped up tech producing the most expensive electricity in the current set of electricity generation. \
We are looking at fusion
You can tell that they're grifters with that simple statement. Nuclear fusion for electricity supply isn't coming in the short term, we just have this cycle of hype that "in a few years it will here! We promise this time!"
Small reactors don’t add up as a viable energy source
Energy researchers say SMR promises don't match reality • The Register
The "nuclear will save us" discourse reminds me of Ilan Shor, the dude who stole a hefty chunk of Moldova's money. From his website:
https://web.archive.org/web/20221227002442/https://partidulsor.md/ the 4th item in the vertical list:
23122022 Ilan Șor: Vom construi centrale nucleare cu reactoare modulare mici, care vor permite asigurarea independenței energetice a Republicii Moldova
same "we'll use SMRs for energy independence"
Wasting money on pipe dreams... because fossil fuel lobbyists want money that could be invested in actual solutions to vanish and corrupt morons love the idea of funneling money to their own or some friends' accounts.
The most recent European nuclear plants took close to 20 years to build. Even if everything goes according to plan, and in Italy it won't, they take around 10 years to build.
It’s worse: they are banking on fusion and SMR, which are pipe dreams even at twice the time scale:
“We are looking at fusion and new-generation fission with completely different tools compared to large-scale nuclear plants of the past,” he stated.
I hope they are lying knowing they are lying.
It is a great way to funnel money to your friends, let them get billions for doing some digging and pouring some concrete and then scrape the project claiming the science wasnt there yet.
Last time I saw the ITER roadmap 20 years ago, it was large scale commercial fusion for 2100 and I really doubt that was a game changer which would shorten this roadmap.
Sure US move forward with some startup perfectly knowing that 90% of them will bankrupt (and sell %some patents), 5% will bend to a different field (If you have a patent on better supra-conducing magnet, you can also build MRI and particle accelerators) and may-be 5% will stay on the "fusion research field". But I doubt they'll have a commercial fusion powerplant soon.
The strategy focuses on advanced technologies, including Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), microreactors, and fourth-generation fission technology. The plan also includes investments in nuclear fusion, reflecting a long-term commitment to sustainable energy development.
You're missing an important part that I highlighted. It doesn't mean that they expect to have fusion up and running by 2030.
I'm fairly convinced that the main proponents of nuclear energy is the construction industry. 20+ year construction jobs in a highly regulated area (a perfect excuse for any sort of delay)? You don't get those very often.
This goes doubly for Italy, where a significant part of that industry has a mafia issue.
Nuclear is also great news for the oil/gas industry that is worried how comparatively very quickly solar/wind power can be rolled out: states heavily [invest] into ideas that give very little bang per buck, take a very long time to realize, and which are usually fairly inflexible in their production.
Mafia translates to incompetence as nepotism, "higher orders", and quid pro quo take precedence over competence.
The reason the reactor in Finland took a long time was due to having to build up suitable competence amongst contractors again. That's now done, and those same contractors will work on building other reactors in Europe.
I completely agree.
I was just about to say, that’ll be a neat trick.
Nuclear in italy was (thankfully) ruled out by a referendum and another vote would need to be done. It's funny how the headline implies the government has somehow already decided to do it.
Why is the article so uncritical? It just takes a quick wikipedia run to see how ludicrous this is:
Fusion power is a proposed form of power generation that would generate electricity by using heat from nuclear fusion reactions.
By 2030 they have that up and running? 🤣
And "new-generation fission" is just a wishy-washy cover-your-ass term. Could mean anything. Wikipedia brings up a couple of pages that are again full of terms like "proposed", "suggested", "might".
And then there's this:
The Italian Council of Ministers approved a plan on Friday to revive nuclear power, reversing the anti-nuclear stance solidified by referendums in 1987 and 2011.
I basically agree with the idea of reaching energy independence and carbon neutrality fast but this does not seem to be the way; the cynicism expressed in other comments is more realistic.
Did you miss this?
The strategy focuses on advanced technologies, including Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), microreactors, and fourth-generation fission technology. The plan also includes investments in nuclear fusion, reflecting a long-term commitment to sustainable energy development.
They aren't planning to have fusion by 2030, just to invest in it. Also fourth generation reactors do exist and multiple are in the demonstration phases.
Whether Italy will have the funds and expertise to pull it off before 2030 is definitely questionable, but I think you're misinterpreting and/or misrepresenting what is being reported here.
Finally, the article doesn't have be pro or contra. It just has to report facts, which is what it's doing. Why is your expectation for it to take a stance one the issue? Shouldn't neutral reporting be what we expect? Do you want people making up their mind for you?
2030
Yeah, no.
Good luck!