In a decisive shift from its past policies, Italy, under the leadership of Premier Giorgia Meloni and Environment and Energy Security Minister Gilberto Pichetto, is paving the way for the reintroduction of nuclear energy, with a focus on the latest in reactor technology: small, modular, and IV generation reactors. This move is not merely a policy change but a strategic recalibration aimed at bolstering national energy security and aligning Italy with modern, low-carbon energy technologies
.Environment and Energy Security Minister Gilberto Pichetto said Thursday that the government aims to pass the necessary legislation to make Italy’s return to nuclear power possible by the end of the current parliamentary term. Italy closed its nuclear plants in 1990 after the 1987 referendum on atomic energy following the Chernobyl disaster.
https://www.ansa.it/english/news/politics/2024/05/02/law-for-return-to-nuclear-by-end-of-this-parliament-pichetto_13c0ae18-efaa-4876-876a-bcbce0022a78.html
Addressing Energy Security
The backdrop to Italy’s renewed interest in nuclear energy is the stark reality of today’s geopolitical landscape, notably heightened by the energy uncertainties following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This scenario has laid bare the vulnerabilities in Europe’s energy supply, making the case for an energy diversification strategy that includes nuclear power compelling. Nuclear energy offers a stable, reliable source of power that can reduce dependence on external entities, the weather, and unpredictable global market shifts. The introduction of nuclear power thus represents a prudent step towards securing a stable energy future for Italy.
Leveraging Modern Technology: The Role of SMRs
Central to Italy’s nuclear strategy is the adoption of small modular reactors (SMRs). Unlike traditional nuclear reactors, SMRs offer a range of benefits that align well with Italy’s strategic and environmental goals. These reactors are designed to be built faster due to their modular nature, which allows for construction in controlled factory settings and assembly onsite, leading to reduced construction times and potentially lower costs. Additionally, SMRs are considered safer due to their smaller size and innovative safety features, reducing the risk of large-scale nuclear accidents.
The flexibility of SMRs also means they can be deployed to complement renewable energy sources, providing baseload power that can fluctuate with the variable output from solar and wind power. This adaptability makes SMRs an integral part of a balanced and resilient energy portfolio, ensuring continuous energy supply without the intermittency issues associated with renewables.
Low-Carbon Commitment
Nuclear power finally beginning to become a cornerstone in the global shift towards low-carbon energy sources. Despite the debates surrounding nuclear energy, its capacity to provide large-scale, continuous, and carbon-free electricity is unmatched by any other current technology. By investing in advanced nuclear reactors, Italy is positioning itself as a leader in sustainable energy production, aligning with European and international targets for CO2 emission reductions. Whether one believes Climate Change is even an issue worth considering, these moves would fit into a positive no regrets strategy regardless of whether or not CO2 emissions are an issue at all.
Rational Policy for a Sustainable Future
Minister Pichetto’s commitment to establish a judicial framework compatible with the development and operation of SMRs reflects a forward-thinking approach to energy policy. By preparing the necessary legislative environment to support nuclear technology, Italy is not only addressing its immediate energy needs but also setting the stage for sustainable growth, energy security, and technological innovation.
This policy shift is a reasoned decision grounded in the realities of today’s energy landscape and the potential of tomorrow’s technologies. It demonstrates a clear understanding that true energy security comes from stable baseload reliable sources. Nuclear energy, particularly through the lens of SMR technology, offers a path to achieve this reliability, enhancing Italy’s energy independence while supporting environmental and economic goals.
In conclusion, Italy’s re-engagement with nuclear power, driven by current geopolitical, economic, and energy considerations, marks a smart and strategic decision. It underscores a commitment to energy security and reliability, showcasing a balanced approach to addressing both immediate needs and long-term challenges. This initiative is a significant step forward, illustrating how nations can responsibly leverage advanced technologies for a secure energy future.
Originally reported here.
Small factory made reactor plants are all the rage. None have yet been built, which simply increases their attraction to technically ignorant politicians since there is “nothing wrong” with them. Will a bunch of them be cheaper, safer, more reliable? Who knows. One thing is sure, they may well be a lot more expensive to run because of the increased number of reactor operations staff and they may will be less reliable because there a much greater number of parts to break. Recall Fukushima; six (large) reactors all dependent on a single group of diesel generators for backup which all failed simultaneously leading to multiple reactor meltdowns. If they pick sodium or molten salt reactors, the risks increase because of materials uncertainties and known maintenance difficulties.
Hydrocarbons are politically dead, hydrogen is folly, and the weather-based Unreliables are a economic dead-end too. The reality is that no new large output nuclear plants will be built in our lifetime due to lawfare, regulation, ignorance, NIMBY / BANANA, cost of capital, TCO, corrupt subsidy/bidding process favoring cronies, political correctness and now, unable to staff competent people because of DEI, let alone trying to find unretired engineers who know anything about nuclear energy.
So whining about hypothetical disasters is counter productive; is why the Americans have been transformed into American’ts, and doesn’t solve the most pressing real problems of running out of affordable and dispatchable energy.
The political alternative is rationing, and the last thing I want are highly corrupted, arrogant and ignorant political/bureaucratic ruling class decides who get energy and who gets to freeze in the dark.
Looks like the compromise in “small factory made reactor plants” is what we do as society continues its unabated crumbling.
AND all this “need” for 4th generation when at least 4 reactors built in the 70s in Virginia are now licensed to operate for 80 years, EIGHTY YEARS!
Those 4 reactors, at two different sites, each site originally approved for 4 reactors, show that all the MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE additional requirements for 4th generation reactors are just a waste of money.
I love that Denis mentions the generators, brilliantly put in a BASEMENT adjacent to the ocean. If they had been up on the hill above the plant, there would have been NO problems at Fukushima. Stupid is as stupid does.
3 Mile Island was due to management and government OVERSIGHT failures, not the plant design itself, again, stupid is as stupid does. AND no one even got excessive radiation from 3 Mile Island OR Fukushima.
The excessive regulation of Nuclear Reactor design is just the leftists trying to fulfill the prophesy that Nuclear is “just too expensive”.
Cue username antics.
I worked at Burns and Roe which designed 6 nuclear plants, including two units at TMI.
The plant was not yet ready to go commercial, but ConEdison wanted to go to 100% load, so it could claim a very sizable tax write off for 1978!!
ConEdison wanted the plant to operate in 1979, but in May 1979, a control issue cause the cooling pumps not to function during the night shift
The core melted down. A huge mess
We used demineralizers and polishers to clean the water on the reactor floor. After that the water was stored in tanks
Unit No 2 ran for 40 years.
I had read that the issue was caused by the emergency water supply valves manually shut for an inspection and then not reopened. When they needed the water, they had to figure out why it could not be pumped into the reactor. By then it was too late.
Yes, they have a regular cooling supply, 2 pumps per reactor, and a backup cooling supply, 2 pumps per reactor
…. figure out why the emergency pumps could not pump through a manually closed emergency valve.
Such a stupidity would not be possible with present nuclear plants, because after TMI, all of them were required to make extensive fail-safe upgrades with redundancies and interlocks.
The interesting thing is, the US nuclear plant fleet is the most efficient in the world, because of all these upgrades, plus training of personnel.
Safety?
It is at least 1000 times safer to be a worker in a nuclear plant than be part of a crew on a passenger plane.
Part of the problem at TMI was information overload because the information was being presented to the operators in a form that was not easy to understand.
I worked on a project for Vogtle when I was in college that was designed to take hundreds of input signals and convert them into diagrams on computer screens. I graduated before the system was finished so I don’t know if it was ever installed, we called the System OEDIPUS.
Just plain WRONG.
The problem, and PBS did a reenactment, was that a PORV, pressure overflow relief valve, kept popping open and not properly resetting. This happened repeatedly. Think your radiator cap popping and letting the coolant drain from your car engine. Same principal.
A middle management moron wrote a memo UP THE LINE about the need to replace the valve. He was a moron because he waited until the 9th or 10th paragraph to mention the seriousness of the issue. The UPPER management didn’t read that far so never “knew” of the problem and never authorized the repair/replacement.
How do I know this. First I watched the PBS dramatization.
Second, while taking a City of Las Vegas course of on effective writing of memos, etc., that memo was provided as an example of what NOT to do. Having seen the PBS show and having looked into the 3MI idiocy, I recognized the memo for what it was. The instructor was surprised. No one had ever brought up 3MI and I sort or ruined his usual surprise “teachable moment” when he would tell his class that one cowardly middle manager and one incompetent manager had cost the company they worked for BILLIONS in the long run.
Drake, you posted:
Well, in reply, this:
“Japan has acknowledged for the first time that a worker at the Fukushima nuclear power plant, destroyed by an earthquake and tsunami more than seven years ago, died from radiation exposure.”
(source: https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN1LL0NV/ )
Note that the Reuters article was published September 5, 2018, more than 5 years ago.
Facts matter.
Lung cancer?
People get that without working at nuclear power plants.
Did you send that comment along to Reuters? . . . perhaps they were not aware of that fact?
Then again, perhaps they were.
It’s a bit late now, don’t you think?
In any event, the claim that his death was caused by radiation is tenuous at best.
Fear of low levels of radiation is very similar to fear of CO2. In both cases those suffering from this fear refuse to acknowledge any evidence that their fear is irrational.
Remember, 99% of humans that eat brocolli or breath C02 die before 90 years old. Oh, the horror.
The 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster—one receiving the highest possible rating for nuclear accident severity—was NOT categorized by “low levels of radiation”:
“. . . 2 workers were hospitalized because of radiation burns,[6] . . .
“[6] McCurry, Justin (24 March 2011). “Japan nuclear plant workers in hospital after radiation exposure”. The Guardian. Retrieved 16 December 2013.”
(source of above quoted text: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident )
Bottom line, Mark: a weak attempt at deflection by you.
The only deflection is by you. The only people who received quote/unquote “high” levels of radiation, were those who were actually inside the plant at the time of the leak. For those outside the plant, the increase in radiation was barely measurable.
So, you now want to deflect to topic to only what happened in Japan’s Fukushima nuclear disaster excluding those workers is the nuclear power plant at the time of reactor meltdowns and associated containment vessel explosions?
OK, go for it!
No deflection, just pointing out that your data does not show what you are so desperate to have it show.
I should trust that a news agency “got it right”? Why?
(Five times I’ve seen stories of which I had personal knowledge of what happened or what they reported. Zero in five got it right.)
One should never trust that a single news agency “got it right”, even though many are overlooking that it was the nation of Japan, not Reuters, that established the cause of the man’s death.
Here is what Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties ) states verbatim on the subject, with accompanying footnotes:
“In 2018 one worker died from lung cancer as a result from radiation exposure.[30][31] After hearing opinions from a panel of radiologists and other experts, the ministry ruled that the man’s family should be paid compensation.[32]”
“[30] Kennedy, Merit (5 September 2018). “Japanese Government Acknowledges First Fukushima Radiation Death”. NPR. Retrieved 18 March 2021.
[31] “Japan acknowledges first radiation death among Fukushima workers”. Reuters. 5 September 2018. Retrieved 18 March 2021.
[32] “Fukushima nuclear disaster: Japan confirms first worker death from radiation”. BBC News. 5 September 2018.”
(note that the cited Wikipedia article provides links to each of the cited references so that a reader can conveniently access each report)
Thus, there are at least three independent news sources, NPR, Reuters and BBC, that carried the story (without subsequent retractions) on Japan’s determination that one worker at Fukushima died as a result of radiation exposure.
So we should trust politicians who are desperately trying to justify the panic they created by forcing the totally unnecessary evacuation.
That comment doesn’t merit a rationale response, as do claims that no Fukushima plant workers were injured by radiation exposure during the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
That’s fortunate, because I’m still waiting for a rational response from you.
You are still relying on a single Wikipedia entry and completely ignoring actual science from actual scientists, engineers and doctors.
The comparison between you and the CO2 alarmists is growing stronger. All you believe are those reports, no matter how ill-founded, that agree with what you want to believe.
Sure . . . multiple nuclear power reactors melting down and exploding . . . with the resulting panic by residents only being “created by the politicians” . . . sure thing.
And it’s great to know that you yourself have the skill set to determine that Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s directive that people within a 20 km (12 mi) zone around the Fukushima nuclear plant must leave was “totally unnecessary”.
Wow, you are so paranoid regarding even tiny amounts of radiation, that your brain has totally shut down.
There was only a single hydrogen explosion and only one reactor melted down.
And yes, it was the politicians who created a totally unnecessary panic.
It’s not my skill set, but the skill set of actual engineers who have studied the issue.
Why do you get so insulting, just because someone points out that you have fooled yourself into believing what you want to believe.
Simply not true, as a simple 20 second Web search reveals.
There were hydrogen-air explosions in reactor units #1, #3 and #4 at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. Aerial photos at this link document the facts that you apparently don’t want to acknowledge:
https://cryptome.org/eyeball/daiichi-npp/daiichi-photos.htm
Also this from TEPCO, the nuclear plant’s operator, summary report of the Fukushima disaster:
“At Units 1 and 3, the leaked hydrogen accumulated at the upper part of the reactor building causing an explosion. At Unit 4, it is believed that during the Unit 3 PCV venting, hydrogen gas may have accumulated inside the reactor building by flowing through an area where the Units 3 and 4 pipes leading to the exhaust stack connects, resulting in a hydrogen explosion.”
—source: https://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/review/review1_1-e.html
And, independently, this:
“Following a major earthquake, a 15-metre tsunami disabled the power supply and cooling of three Fukushima Daiichi reactors, causing a nuclear accident beginning on 11 March 2011. All three cores largely melted in the first three days.
“The accident was rated level 7 on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale, due to high radioactive releases over days 4 to 6, eventually a total of some 940 PBq (I-131 eq).”
— source: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-daiichi-accident
(my bold emphasis added)
Now, you were saying something about “fooling oneself into believing what you want to believe” . . .
How many FDNY firefighters have received compensation from the Federal government for WORKING at ground zero of the twin towers and getting lung cancer or heart disease?
The government created a massive slush fund for ANY claim that could tangentially be connected to the dust and debris they worked in searching for the dead. The political appointees distribute that money, WITH NO PROOF.
Firefighters as a whole die at higher rates for heart and lung ailments. Primarily due to the job they CHOSE to do. The major reason is their own failure to use proper PPE ALL THE TIME.
I am a retired construction worker and I have hearing loss due to MY failure to use hearing protection ALL THE TIME. MY FAULT.
Now as to ONE worker getting lung cancer and a political committee assigning blame to the reactor problem is NO PROOF. Now if 5 or 10 got the same type of cancer at about the same time after the exposure, THEN you could start speaking of causation.
You believing in the dreaded CO2 scam shows that causation and correlation are the same in your feeble mind.
Thank you for making clear to all the insightful wisdom of Socrates who said:
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
Truth is now slander. Countervailing data is now deflection.
If that’s the best you can do, it’s no wonder you have to resort to insults.
Properly known as Al Reuters.
And yet the UNSCEAR report (pdf) states
I refer you to the above post by Gunga Din.
Perhaps UNSCEAR is offering misdirection—intentional or otherwise—by distinguishing the Fukushima plant worker that died from “Fukushima residents”?
Let’s see, the Misleadia report one person died of lung cancer and jumped to the conclusion it was caused by the nuclear plant.
The UNSCEAR report based on more than 1600 peer-reviewed papers says the nuclear plant did not cause any adverse health effects.
But you choose to believe the Misleadia.
Cited Wikipedia references . . . WHOOSH, ruffled hair.
LMAO!
You cited Wiki, not me
WHOOSH, ruffled hair.
No, I specifically cited independent references that Wikipedia provided . . . I guess you don’t realize the difference. Pity.
So you prefer independent to competent. Interesting.
And you are thusly implying that NPR, Reuters and the BBC are not “competent” news reporting agencies. Interesting.
ROTFLMAO!
Yes, they are!!
(That is to say the Beeb, Rooters, and NotPublicRadio are not news agencies at all. They are propaganda agencies that will occasionally, and likely accidentally, report things that are mostly true)
You are implying that NPR, Reuters and BBC are competent sources of news.
Are you normally this incredulous, or are you simply so afraid of even small amounts of radiation that your brain completely stops functioning?
Anyone who trusts wikipedia, has revealed themselves to be a fool.
Wikipedia reference – whoosh, ruffled hair.
How typical, anyone who discredits your absurd claims, is just trying to misdirect.
Not my claims . . . you obviously missed the fact that that admissions of worker radiation injury from the Fukushima nuclear accident were determined by the nation of Japan, not the reporting media.
Why am I not surprised by this fact?
Yup, the politicians said what you want to hear, so now you are going to ignore actual scientists and engineers.
And yet the UNSCEAR report does not address, anywhere, the health impacts of radiation exposures to the workers at the Fukushima nuclear plant at the time of the reactor meltdowns and containment vessel explosions.
The report does discuss emergency “workers” that came into areas surrounding the Fukushima plant to performed clean-up activities following the explosions.
Clearly, you didn’t bother to read the link or any of the cited reference papers.
Go away, read the report, and then come back with a better educated response.
Interesting that you didn’t care to cite a single reference that discusses the hospitalization for radiation burns nor the Japan ministry’s determination-of-one-Fukushima-plant-worker’s-death from radiation exposure as results of the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
And no, I did not bother to read the 1600 peer-reviewed papers you assert the UNSCEAR report claims supports their findings . . . did YOU?
So, go away, read the cited 1600 peer-reviewed references and then come back with a better-educated response on this matter.
Like most activists, he’s only interested in reading sources that are going to confirm what he already believes. Agreement is all that matters. Looking into whether his sources have the knowledge and competence to make such calls is not necessary.
I would agree, assuming logically that you are referring to Redge.
Your logic as demonstrated many times above, is still completely faulty.
Redge, this guy knows what he wants to know and is completely impervious to any countering facts.
ROTFL . . . is that the equivalent of a huddle in football?
Reference:
“There was only a single hydrogen explosion and only one reactor melted down.” — MarkW, May 7, 2024, 11:13 am
“Hydrocarbons are politically dead”
Suffering but not dead yet- time for a revival.
BRICS, with 11 members and 20 applicants, including China, India, Russia, Brazil, Argentina, etc., would disagree regarding ending fossil fuels.
In fact, they think it is a Western, rules-based, insanity, to impoverish them.
✔
It is Western insanity to impoverish the West. China, India, Russia, Brazil, etc. will do as they see fit their national interests.
Which is not to say the the insane Westerners promoting this do not also want BRICS to impoverish themselves too, but rather that the BRICS block is too hardened to fall for this soft power play.
As just ONE of the many ‘actions’ by Pols throughout these past several years, is the everlasting puzzle about WHY they don’t continue to utilize what has worked economically for so many decades. ($$$ MUST be the answer)
Wind/solar/batteries/hydrogen/EVs/air source heat pumps, etc., are a financial scam to enrich world elites, who will continue to fly their planes and sail their yachts; no command/control, choking restrictions off any kind on them!!
They were, more or less, implemented, because the IPCC, and associated perpetrators, concocted a global warming hoax, based on CO2 and fossil fuels being the villains, whereas CO2 greens the earth, creates flora and fauna, including us, and increases crop yields per acre, and reduces desert areas.
We need more CO2, as proven by plant growth in greenhouses with 1000 to 1200 ppm CO2
No large nuclear reactors will be built in out lifetimes? I don’t see how that is an argument in favor of building larger numbers of small reactors which have yet to be proven. Also, there are currently 60 electric power reactors of various powers from medium to very large under construction in a number of countries, an additional 90 that are in the planning stages and an additional 300 proposed. There will be plenty of new reactors built in our lifetimes although new ones in my remaining lifetime may be few, I am 82. Also, why do you think the US politics of small reactors will be any more gentle than large ones? I don’t believe that those who are opposed to reactors care much about the size. Furthermore, large reactors can have walk-away safety features which perform as well as those conceived by modular reactor designers and are in fact being built today. The recently completed Vogtle reactors are large and have such features. Are they expensive? Yes, the cost of building them will add about $10 to the monthly electric bills in the area served. Inflation alone added that much in the past few years. It seems to me that an extra 10 bucks per month is a small amount to pay for 24-7 electric power.
I am not opposed to development of new reactors. I am opposed to those who know absolutely nothing about reactor design suggesting that small “modular” reactors will solve the technical problems of current large reactors even though it is well established that current large designs work very well and cause far far less environmental impact, even when they do have a serious accident, than coal, gas, wind or solar plants. I am also opposed to those who proclaim that modular reactors will be cheaper for the same amount of power produced than a large one when nobody knows whether they will be or not. So go build a single set of modulars and find out! There was such a plan for Idaho recently but it seems to have died when one or more of the subscribing utilities backed out. I wonder why they did.
I agree with you that hydrogen is folly simply because of the very high costs of managing it. I also agree with you that there is probably lots of folly emanating from the NRC which greatly increases reactor construction cost but I am not versed enough in that practice to suggest what should be done.
“There was such a plan for Idaho recently but it seems to have died when one or more of the subscribing utilities backed out. I wonder why they did.”
I posit that it is because they were ‘pressured’, or ‘rewarded’ to do so.
“ I am opposed to those who know absolutely nothing about reactor design suggesting that small “modular” reactors will solve the technical problems of current large reactors..”
So the companies like Westinghouse and Rolls Royce know nothing reactor design?
thats absurd of course . There still will be large scale 1.0-1.5GW reactors still built.
The only advantage of the SMR is ‘mass production’ aspect where expensive modules are made in a ‘factory’ environment and it lowers the cost and brings it into generation much more quickly . 15 years plus is crazy long
. That requires a continuing series production which you cant get by a 1.2GW plant every 10-15 years.
They can still build 4 x 500MW SMR alongside each other to have a 1.5GW total generation for suitable locations where the base load is required. Some places might be just 1x 500MW unit.
Hydrogen is folly because it has never been, is not, and will never be an energy SOURCE.
You have to PRODUCE Hydrogen, and the energy expended to do so will never be exceeded by the energy gotten by burning it.
“technically ignorant politicians since there is “nothing wrong” with them”
I think we’d have to presume they have spoken to engineers first.
Joseph, is that sarcasm?
well, some politicians are considering these modern nuclear reactors- and it was complained that ignorant politicians want to move ahead with them- so I thought they must be listening to some engineers- maybe I misunderstood Denis- certainly not all politicians, a small minority are so enlightened- but maybe that’s impossible
Just which engineers is important Joseph. Those working for companies advocating modulars are likely to be quite biased and will praise their design to the heavens. Recognize that if the Government funds a modular development program, the executives of the companies involved will be sure to give themselves very generous compensation (it’s high risk don’t ya know) and the workers will have good jobs for a few years at least. LIke most things, it’s about the bucks.
The current system of massive 1.2GW + reactors built over 15 years isnt working
You may want to check with the US and other navies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_navy
Russia makes small nuclear reactors. If you pay Russia some money, they will sail a russian ship equiped with a nuclear reactor into your port and will hook it up to your grid.
Nuclear submarines are essentially “small factory made reactor plants”. They have been making them for 70 years now. (1950’s)
“None have been built”.
Denis, there are plenty of small reactors working fine on warships.
Add, in an experiment, a B-36 “Peacemaker” even carried one.
(It didn’t power the engines though. Part of cancelled studies to see if a nuclear powered bomber was possible.)
PS The B-36 “Peacemaker” was the only US bomber that never dropped a bomb in anger.
There are many on ships already.
You mean there’s no evidence that these SMRs are safe and reliable? OMG, how do such ideas get traction where the evidence doesn’t support such notions?
The diesel generator failures arose due to the stupid decision to locate said generators in the “basement” where the tsunami floodwaters inundated them.
Had they located them high enough to remain dry, there would have been no problem at Fukushima despite its aged design.
Easy fixes eliminate hysteria about nuclear power.
If Anthony Watts still doesnt accept the universal finding of scientific research that ‘earth is warming, the cause is man’s burning of fossil fuels, and the net effects are strongly harmful’, why does he promote more expensive nuclear power?
Your “universal scientific research” is nothing more than creative manipulation of parameters within computer modeling of a fake world that doesn’t include sun, clouds or volcanos.
A precious combination of mischaracterized science and antinuclear prejudice. There is general agreement that the Earth has warmed since 1850, the end of the Little Ice Age. That does not mean there is agreement that both the warming is harmful, and that substantially all warming is caused by human activities. Oreskes and separately Cook were doing agitprop, not science.
The cost of nuclear energy should be judged by the alternatives. Even given extensive lawfare raising the price, nuclear is cheaper than wind and solar and storage. If one really cares about CO2 emissions, nuclear is the only viable existing choice.
Ditto.
If the WORLD had just kept building nuclear reactors into the 80s and 90s, there would be so much baseline electricity that shutting down coal plants would make sense from a COST basis. With fracking, all variations in required output that hydro could not make up, CCNG would easily handle.
BTW, I am still of the opinion that all the anti nuke protests and protesters were funded by BIG COAL since it was their product, baseline electrical generation, that nuclear was cutting into.
So leftists shutting down nukes lead to the ability to blame mankind for global warming and use that to push other leftist plans. Those plans all revolve around controlling mankind by forcing everyone into their glorified 15 minute cities. There people could be trained to depend on the government and VOTE for more government, as EVERY major city in the WORLD (that CAN actually vote) currently does. Also way easier to “harvest” liberal votes to get a higher % of ‘their” voters ballots to the polls.
If TRUMP! wins, the republicans MUST require every vote to be cast at a polling place or the ballot completed in “Secret” with a notary verifying the voter’s identity.
AND since the US constitution specifies that the US Congress decides the time of the election, eliminate early voting for all federal races, One election day, all mail of absentee votes to be in by 11:59 pm of election day excepting military serving overseas in a “conflict” zone, where postmarked on election day.
An added bonus would be requiring every liberal jurisdiction be monitored by FEDERAL agents and videotaped at all polling locations. Of course the “voting rights act” that does not allow ANYONE to track the faces of voters must be replaced by a law that REQUIRED the voters to be videotaped for facial recognition. Just NOT tied directly to any ballot. And Voter ID also required for on site voting.
‘If TRUMP! wins, the republicans MUST …..’
____________________________________________
Very big “IF” And the Republicans aren’t going to get their act together for the same reason that it’s difficult to herd cats
They have their act together… it is identical to the Dems act.
Apart from any points in your post, it is “President Donald J. Trump”, or at the very least “President Trump”… Thanks.
I contest the point that BIG COAL caused the anti nuke protests.
There has been for decades rich foreign actors intent on bringing down America.
Keeping America from being energy secure into the future decades was the goal as is the current anti-CO2 crusade.
Natural gas is cheaper than nuclear with gas prices earlier this year at the lowest on record for the US (since1922) adjusted for inflation.
The Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act, which will ban the importation into the USA of low-enriched uranium (LEU) that is produced in Russia or by a Russian entity, will now go to President Biden to be signed into law.
This can only raise uranium prices.
Russian state-owned energy company Rosatom says it supplies 17% of the world’s nuclear fuel. The U.S., the largest producer of nuclear energy, relies on Russia for 20% of its enriched uranium, although that is limited by an import cap that pre-dates Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Mar 21, 2024
Nuclear is cheaper than the (nonexistent carbon capture equipped) natural gas plants. This is discussing relative prices of proposed solutions, not whether any CO2 limits are needed in the first place.
One also has to factor in balance of payments: say natural gas power is half the expense of nuclear, for argument sake. But what if you country has no natural gas? Then you have a huge amount of wealth leaving your country. But if you made the nuclear reactors, very little would be dependent on outside sources even if you had no uranium – we’ve been told that uranium could be filtered out of sea water, but they never say for how much. Still, the fuel is a small factor in nuclear power, unlike a CCGT plant.
As a side note, higher efficiency high temperature reactors, once they are streamlined and simplified and proven, will go far to close the cost gap with CCGT.
Warren you are clearly not on the same planet as the rest of us, what have you been taking that you can produce so many errors in one sentence. Get a grip mate, humans aren’t causing climate change, just urban heat.
Universal? Really? Do you have any evidence to support such nonsense?
There have been multiple articles on this site that put the lie to that claim.
As to your belief that nuclear is more expensive, well you have already proven that you are willing to believe all kinds of nonsense.
An attribution to Anthony as though his alias is Giorgia Meloni.
The wonders of the human mind. Fabulous!
“why does he promote more expensive nuclear power?”
Because it works, is reliable, and is the only reasonable alternative to fossil fuels
I speak for myself, not for AW
Global warming is real, although exaggerated by surface statistics
Manmade CO2 emissions are one cause of warming, but no one knows the percentage of warming from manmade causes.
Evidence collecte so far better supports manmade causes: CO2 emissions, SO2 emission reductions and albedo changes.
There is less evidence of natural causes of warming, biased by the fact that there is almost no government money to study natural causes of global warming. Most needed data are not collected
Where you go off the rails completely is claiming global warming is “strongly harmful”
Those are the thoughts of a lunatic
We have ha 48 years of actual global warming.
I have been trying to find a climate problem since 1997. I can not identify any problems at all.
For one example: The result of global warming where I live in SE Michigan has been great climate news since the 1970s. I sure hope for another 48 years of warming. My plants would love another 50% increase of CO2
Climate change (CAGW predictions ) is a fake crisis
Used to justify Nut Zero, a fake engineering project
Nut Zero is implement by a fake President
Joe Bribe’em won a fake election
What is real?
There is a Real Transition to Leftist Fascism being justified to force Nut Zero on people who prefer personal freedom and a reliable electric grid.
A new Police State (ask Donald Trump) to “save a planet” that does not need to be saved
Only leftists could invent such a devious plan. That’s why leftists are vermin
Too bad we can’t set traps for them
Great post Richard.
Don’t think he does. When did he do that?
“universal” – I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
He must have a good telescope and saw Uranus. His universe revolves around what he saw in the mirror.
(Do we need to rename the planet? Hisanus?)
cute.
Citation please for, ” … more expensive nuclear power … “
I think he might be referring to the “Lawfare” to prevent it from happening.
The beetroot produces one of the most absurdly idiotic comments… evah !
Everything in the comment is the opposite of reality.
The Earth is not warming because of man’s use of fossil fuels.
The net effect of slight natural warming is totally beneficial.
The net effect of enhanced atmospheric CO2 is totally beneficial.
Nuclear is a viable supplement to coal and gas and could be build a lot cheaper if political will allowed it to be.
What the world needs is solid reliable dispatchable electricity, not erratic weather dependent parasitic non-supplies.
Only Coal, Gas, Nuclear, and where rainfall and terrain allows, hydro, can provide solid reliable dispatchable electricity.
Thank you.
Ps, I forgot geothermal…. there are also some very small areas where geothermal can be used as dispatchable reliable energy for electricity eg Iceland and New Zealand both have dispatchable geothermal.
But most places in the world, this is not available.
I believe there is a field somewhere in central California that is managing to make money.
Universal?
100% of all scientists and climatologists are 100% on board with this hypothesis?
What’s in the air over there? Common sense? And how many parts per million are needed before it takes effect?
Italians have always been pragmatic. Americans used to be too.
As is evident by their actions in World War II?
Sure, they quit the war as soon as it was obviously necessary- not fanatic like the Germans.
Ahhh . . . but my understanding is that Italy first chose to be an ally of Germany (ref: “The Pact of Steel”), rather than to oppose them.
It was only toward the end of the war, 1943, as Germany’s pending defeat became apparent, that the government of Italy declared war on its former Axis partner Germany.
I call such actions opportunistic, not so much “pragmatic”.
As to any assertion that Benito Mussolini was “not fanatic like the Germans” . . .
those 2 words seem to overlap in some ways
Benito was not AS fanatic as you know who (not saying it to avoid being moderated).
Wow, such ignorance in one post, mind-blowing.
That’s all you got?
WW1
Where did Italy stand?
The issue was Italy’s actions in WWII, not WWI. Pay attention.
“The Pact of Steel”?
You left out the “Non-Aggression Pact” with Russia.
Germany got half of Poland, Communist Russia invaded and got the other half.
No, I did not because I was specifically referring, in my post, to Italy’s relationship with Nazi Germany during WWII.
Why would I want to conflate the issue with how Italy interacted with any other country during that time?
The first engagement between Britain and Italy during WWII, the Italians attacked a British force that was 1/10th their size. And had their asses handed to them. The only battles they managed to win, were the ones where they were acting as backup for the Germans.
The quit the war because they were tired of being embarrassed.
Italians would rather make love than war.
I worked with a man that was a WW2 vet.
(Ended up in Dachau.)
His unit was at Stalingrad.
When Italy surrendered his unit (in Yugoslavia) was ordered to only surrender their arms to the allies.
The Germans got there first. They didn’t surrender.
I wish I remembered the percentage of his unit that survived. It wasn’t much.
As I said, after three escapes and recaptures, he ended up in Dachau.
In WW2 their leadership and equipment and training may have been inferior, but the men were no more “inferior” than any other nations’.
That man died a couple of decades ago. Wish I could talk to him again.
PS My ancestry is Irish/German (with maybe some Scotch?).
I thought that the Irish and Germans preferred ale, not Scotch.
It’s a new pizza topping.
The real risks of nuclear is political, as the Green Blob has a strong Luddite faction, and holdovers from Cold War dezinformatsiya about the risks.
Meloni would have to convince investors that the Green Blob is very unlikely to ever take power again.
It is good that Italy will rewelcome nuclear. But they should focus on Gen 4 generally, not just SMR. There are also two basic versions of MSR (uranium, thorium), plus at least Gates’ TerraPower.
I also wish the US would investigate all Gen 4 proposals, then built at least one prototype to shake out the engineering bugs, so we can move beyond the gen 3 Vogtle 3&4 fiasco.
China is building a Gen 4 MSR prototype. We should not let them get ahead on such critical technology.
Rud, in the end, the Vogtle 3 & 4 fiasco as you say, has not turned out to be such a fiasco. They were much more expensive to build than first thought for lots of reasons, COVD included. And they were delayed many years denying their service area their benefits for these years. But in the end, they have increased the electricity cost of the average homeowner in their service area by about $10 per month. To me, that doesn’t seem too much to more pay for 24/7 juice.
Wind-powered Britons and Germans would be extatic if they only had to pay only $10 more per month compared to the alternatives.
That is unavoidable. China is winning because they are not artificially constrained by climate obsession.
https://english.www.gov.cn/news/topnews/202112/21/content_WS61c12eb4c6d09c94e48a2833.html
What will be interesting is how fast they pivot to this technology. Then how readily they provide it to the rest of the world or retain their edge.
If it proves economic, they will focus on building internal capacity for nuclear while selling their solar panels and wind turbines to countries silly enough to install them.
Italy will most likely look to China for joint development of thee technology given China’s current position.
COP28’s pivot to nuclear is another nail in the coffin of wind and solar.
Very unintentionally funny piece in UK Telegraph about how tech firms are looking to nuclear to get enough power for AId:
Glad you finally noticed! May not be well suited, indeed!
Note for the UK, you not only have to reckon with doubling demand from your heat pump and EV drive, and you already cannot build housing because you don’t have enough capacity to power them, having dismantled GWs of dispatchable coal powered generation. Now you also have to think about how many wind turbines you have to install not to drive all the AI investment to more hospitable countries. And how to make the wind power dispatchable.
How many GW of wind is it going to be, to do all this while leading the world to Net Zero? And making power generation net zero by 2030. That is six years away now…
Good luck!
I suspect that many data center developers are looking at including local gas or diesel powered generator set(s) to service just their building(s). Will local zoners permit that? Hmmm.
From the above article:
” . . . these moves would fit into a positive no regrets strategy regardless of whether or not CO2 emissions are an issue at all.”
No regrets? Well maybe, but only if:
— Italy is very lucky, and
— SMR’s ever turn out to be practical at the size envisioned.
The overall thermal efficiency of today’s nuclear power plants (ranging in size from about 500 to 1100 MWe nameplate capacity is about 33%): that means each such plant ends up dumping in the range of 1000–2200 MWt as “waste heat” power into the nearby environment. Today, this is accomplished by dumping the heat into nearby LARGE bodies of water (oceans, lakes or rivers) or by using massive evaporative cooling towers that consume large quantities of fresh water.
Generally, thermodynamic efficiency of steam-cycle power plants scales inversely to volume, so one can reasonably expect “compact” SMRs using a steam-based power cycle (and I haven’t heard of other power cycle options for them) to be closer to 25% thermal efficiency than 33% thermal efficiency.
So a 50–100 MWe SMR can be expected to dump 150–300 MWt into the local environment. This will not be accomplished just by using forced air cooling (fans). In turn, this severely limits the citing options available to SMRs.
Of course, there has been NO demonstration yet of a commercial SMR power plant operating continuously over a year or more at nameplate capacity . . . a minor nit, perhaps, for some.
You may want to check with the US Navy on that.
And ” … over a year or more … ” is normally relegated to the Department of Redundancy Department.
If you want to assert that nuclear reactor power plants on submarines, because they are relatively compact, qualify as being “SMRs”, go for it.
The Web seems to have a different take, not associating such military vessel nuclear power plants with the term “Small Modular Reactors” as commonly used (e.g., see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor ).
Perhaps this is because the power produced by modern nuclear reactors on submarines is in the range of 150–200 MW thermal. When converted to delivered electrical power, this would be equivalent to about 50–70 MWe output, which is generally below the lowest design output power being associated with commercial SMR’s that are proposed for cities, large industrial businesses and even computing/AI data processing centers.
Then too, submarines operating in a water environment don’t have any of the problems of providing cooling to their steam-based power generation cycle . . . quite a different situation from the environment for land-based nuclear reactors, large or small.
As for “operating continuously over a year or more”, I specifically used that criterion to rule out short test demonstration runs of prototype commercial SMRs that were demonstrated as far back as 2007 (Oregon State University prototype) or, even earlier back to the 1950’s–1960’s, for prototype small, molten salt nuclear reactors operated at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
US Navy reactors are unique and ill suited for land based energy generation. They are literally floating on water as a singular interesting bit of trivia.
But it’s repackaged, simplified old tech – why the obsession with “no demonstration” yet?
I want to see high temperature designs tackled – that’s what’s made CCGT and super-critical coal so attractive – yes, more expensive to build because of the tech, but much cheaper to run because of the high efficiency.
However, nuclear fuel costs are not a big factor in the monthly bill of a nuke powered home, so it’s not a big necessity.
Hah! You obviously have not read any of the marketing material being issued by the proponents of SMRs.
Don’t tell me you’ve already invested in a controlled nuclear fusion power plant? ROTFL.
All fossil fuel plants dump at least as much heat into the environment as does nuclear.
How long are you going to keep beating this dead horse.
The subject of the above article was Italy’s movement toward nuclear power, with emphasis on Small Modular Reactors (SMRs).
I’m not at all surprised that your would want to now deflect the discussion to how much heat fossil fuel power plants (that are nowhere near the claimed compact size of current proposed SMR designs) dump into the environment.
You are the one complaining about how much heat nuclear plants generate.
As such, it is entirely reasonable to point out that other sources of power also generate heat.
Not a deflection at all. Your attempts to find something to whine about in regards to nuclear are so pathetic, that they are approaching comical.
Well, in that case, how much heat do the hydroelectric generators at Hover Dam dump into the environment?
Not whining, just asking?
Now you are deflecting.
And, of course, you provide no answer to a simple question.
Nothing like a change in government to get the train back on the rails. Meloni in Italy and Milei in Argentina are a good examples for the world.
You can say that again. 😉
There are (still) a lot of up-ended rails to mend.
Add Najib Bukele of El Salvador to the list. He reduced the country’s huge gang-related murder rate to below that of Canada by simply locking up gang members. Sometimes difficult problems have simple solutions.
Nothing like a change in government to get the train back on the rails. Meloni in Italy and Milei in Argentina are a good examples for the world.
And before long….. TRUMP make the United States of America another one of those good examples. 😀
We need the continued (continuous) use of “President Trump”, to counter the ‘assumption’ that brandon is one.
Great (again 😊 ) idea, Sturm. PRESIDENT TRUMP, when elected for the THIRD time *ahem* will (oops — left that word out of my prior comment) make the U.S.A. a GREAT example of data-driven, sensible, national-security-promoting, energy policy. 😀
Energy security. Hmmm…
Imagine that, a government putting its national interests first. Imagine a government that puts its citizens’ needs first.
It has been a long hiatus.
Such a concept. The good of the many outweighs the good of the few.
Please do not misinterpret that in a DEI, or other divisive social justice meme.
To put everyone on the same page …
Small modular reactor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor
Kudos to the Italian government leadership. It goes to show that government doesn’t have to be bad all the time. I hope they can move the rest of the government in the right direction. They have their work cut out for them.
That’s good news! And regardless of whether AGW will be a problem, it certainly won’t hurt to have lots of clean nuclear power generation. There are other practical reasons for doing so; for example in states like Vermont where a lot of gas is used to heat homes in the winter, utilities are sometimes stretched because they have a lot of gas power generation as well.
To be buried, lost, in time; Title: Electron paramagnetic resonance proof for the existence of …
https://pure.tudelft.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/126823930/1_s2.0_S0360319922022406_main.pdf