‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Italian parliament votes for return to nuclear energy

908 points · 818 comments · geox

  1. jacquesm · · focus · HN ↗
    I've seen quite a few SMR proposals over the last couple of years and not a single one that dared to address the whole cycle from deployment to eventual decommission as a function of the total revenues - costs to operate. Most of these projects seem to be made to bilk investors or governments rather than to actually produce power. The day Italy produces the first KWh that is net profitable to the operators without counting subsidies I will be highly amazed, and that's assuming they get to operational in the first place.
    1. asmodeuslucifer · · focus · HN ↗
      I agree, I tell everyone who will listen that no country, not Russia, China, Japan, France, USA etc has ever made nuclear power profitable. And you can't blame it on the environmentalists in China and Russia.

      That being said, many countries consider it a national security issue not to be held hostage to foreign oil.

      1. bdauvergne · · focus · HN ↗
        Maybe you could give numbers because french nuclear industry is completely profitable. If you like numbers like me: there were more subsidies to wind and solar energy the last twenty years in germany than the price of the whole french nuclear program (300 billions) since its inception (250 billions since the 1974).

        The reliability of french electricity benefits both France and Europe as a whole. I cannot say the same about what germany is trying to do.

        1. asmodeuslucifer · · focus · HN ↗
          Anything is cheaper when you don't count all the costs.

          In January 2017 a parliamentary committee reported: "The cost of decommissioning is likely to be greater than the provisions," the technical feasibility is "not fully assured" and the dismantling work will take "presumably more time than expected."

          <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;world-nuclear.org&#x2F;information-library&#x2F;country-profiles&#x2F;countries-a-f&#x2F;france?ref=undecided.tech" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;world-nuclear.org&#x2F;information-library&#x2F;country-profil...

          1. krferriter · · focus · HN ↗
            There’s tons of costs associated with coal, oil, and natural gas extraction, processing, and use, which are neither priced into up front costs nor the price that customers pay for the product. If those were priced in, then fossil fuels would have to become more expensive. Those costs currently get diffused into various other areas and paid for by a wide net of payers, including both the customers and non-customers, and a big one is the government (taxpayer).
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.