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.
> 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.)
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.
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.
> And where does the nuclear fuel come from? Russia.
Not true at all. Russia is producing 5% of the world Uranium, and they probably use quite a lot of that domestically given they produce 8% of all nuclear power in the world with their own plant.
Kazakhstan + Uzbekistan is 50% of the word production. Canada is second and will be happy to start selling to the EU. Namibia and Australia both produce twice as much as Russia.
Not to say that supply of natural Uranium is not a concern because you do depends of a small list of countries but we don't need to buy any from Russia.
Canada, Khazakhstan, Namibi, and so on. Russia is pretty far down the list. Australia has the largest known reserves of uranium they just haven pushed to extensively extract it.
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.
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.
The green energy lobby has everything to gain, and it's been working extra to make it a reality. For example, Greenpeace has been fighting nuclear power all over the world.
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.
This says that up to 25% of electricity is imported during peak times, and as of 2016, Italy was the third-largest net importer of electricity after US and Brazil.
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?
As always with nuclear there are a few taboo topics. One of them being fuel supply. For European reactors that seems to be either Mali/Niger, or Russia. Both not excellent if the goal is geopolitical independence.
Solar, wind and batteries have no fuel concerns, and they are inherently decentralized.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
> 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).
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?")
Most people do not understand this and think that we can reall talk about nuclear vs solar when we really need to talk about an energy mix where you pick one point (for example you pick nuclear or solar) and the rest depends on this choice.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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).
> Oh, I hoped it's about nuclear weapons. Pitty, it's not.
If you were going to resume work on nuclear weapons, would you announce it immediately? ... Or would you say that you're developing your nuclear power capabilities.
There are well established historical lines here to be read between.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Readit News
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_P...
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.
The only way to be independent is to invest in renewables and storage.
And where does the nuclear fuel come from? Russia.
Not true at all. Russia is producing 5% of the world Uranium, and they probably use quite a lot of that domestically given they produce 8% of all nuclear power in the world with their own plant.
Kazakhstan + Uzbekistan is 50% of the word production. Canada is second and will be happy to start selling to the EU. Namibia and Australia both produce twice as much as Russia.
Not to say that supply of natural Uranium is not a concern because you do depends of a small list of countries but we don't need to buy any from Russia.
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_p...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country
Enel has built/is managing nuclear plants in Spain and Slovakia: https://www.enel.com/media/explore/search-press-releases/pre...
Eni is involved in building the first fusion plant: https://www.ansa.it/english/news/science_tecnology/2024/04/0...
Canada, Khazakhstan, Namibi, and so on. Russia is pretty far down the list. Australia has the largest known reserves of uranium they just haven pushed to extensively extract it.
Edit: Parent meant enriched uranium, not ore so this comment is not relevant.
Deleted Comment
>And where does the nuclear fuel come from? Russia.
Nonsense.
And do you really want another target for foreign sabotage?
This is great news, and will hopefully lower the cost of electricity that we mostly import from France.
Well-timed populists.
The second one was an unfortunate coincidence.
By the way, Italy had several nuclear reactors, but they were shut down after the first referendum.
This says that up to 25% of electricity is imported during peak times, and as of 2016, Italy was the third-largest net importer of electricity after US and Brazil.
Investing in renewables and storage will.
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?
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.
Enough for a long cold winter night in northern Europe?
Enough for a longer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkelflaute ?
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.
Solar, wind and batteries have no fuel concerns, and they are inherently decentralized.
Look at the energy crisis. Did we have a lack of energy? No, the pricing mechanism made sure we had no rolling blackouts.
Did we have expensive energy? Yes, that was the whole crisis.
You want to lock in another energy crisis because you are completely locked into trying to justify building nuclear power.
How do we stop fukushima-like disasters?
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/geot...
https://www.lanazione.it/cronaca/geotermia-patto-regione-ene...
https://solargis.com/resources/free-maps-and-gis-data?locali...
But this shouldn’t even be a requirement as long as you can feed it into the grid.
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.
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).
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?")
Than you can calculate the price.
Batteries are just going to get better - especially over a 10y time span
Nuclear isn’t a bad option too. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket
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_trend...
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.
Deleted Comment
It's not a universal answer.
If you were going to resume work on nuclear weapons, would you announce it immediately? ... Or would you say that you're developing your nuclear power capabilities.
There are well established historical lines here to be read between.
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.
American here. It’s becoming clear that a sizeable section of our electorate only respects nuclear sovereignty.
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.
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.