I'm Italian and I'm super happy with this.
The referendum that made nuclear energy illegal in Italy was held right after the accident of Chernobyl; people voted with their gut, not with their mind.
Curiously enough, some Italian town signs still have a small sub-sign reading "denuclearized municipality" (example: <a href="https://live.staticflickr.com/1421/712461235_e46a2c7db5_z.jpg" rel="nofollow">https://live.staticflickr.com/1421/712461235_e46a2c7db5_z.jp... )
As someone who thinks nuclear is both less efficient and much more expensive than renewable energies - would you mind sharing a bit why this makes you happy?
Since all plants in Italy are closed since the 90s won’t it take decades and billions of tax euros to get them back operational again?
It’s not either or, you need both. We haven’t solved energy storage so renewables can’t be the only source of energy. If you look at Value-Adjusted Levelized Cost of Electricity (VALCOE) it changes the calculation quite a bit. We have negative energy prices a few times per year in Europe as it is.
We’ve solved both. The research has moved on from VALCOE to whole system modeling. Including transmission, storage, backup, firming and modeling it hour by hour.
Studies are converging on renewable energy systems being cheaper in climates ranging from Australia to the Nordics:
Some recent ones:
Finland, 2025: nuclear scenarios 71–84% higher system cost; unrestricted least-cost optimization builds zero new nuclear.
<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544225042720" rel="nofollow">https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036054422...
Denmark, 2026: system-level LCOE including storage, flexibility and system integration; renewables substantially cheaper than nuclear.
<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544226009837" rel="nofollow">https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036054422...
Australia, CSIRO + AEMO GenCost 2025–26: whole-system modelling including transmission, storage and firming; renewables + storage remain the lowest-cost net-zero pathway.
<a href="https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/Electricity-transition/GenCost" rel="nofollow">https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/Ele...
I do a lot of work in this space, including all that modeling you mentioned. "Solved" is a bit of an overstatement. The system works, and it can work with renewables+storage (modulo total supply of BESS is not there yet). However, there is high tail risk to not having steady baseload power.
And, even under ideal conditions, baseload is still quite hard. Especially in Southern Europe (e.g. which has quite a bit less land than Australia, and less wind than the nordic countries).
Fundamentally, I agree that it boils down to cost, and the people writing $XXB checks are generally pretty good at financial modeling. If nuclear makes sense, and the regulations allow it, they will build it. However, it's fighting against a highly variable, zero-marginal-cost renewable market with something that is high capex. Same reason people don't build new coal in the US despite certain politicians trying to popularize it.
My guess... If it does take off, either it will have to be wildly cheap (unlikely), or there are geopolitical concerns about the gas backup that Italy currently relies on so heavily to make the renewables work.
I love renewables, especially solar with batteries, but I definitely see the tail risks of not having some amount of independent base load, for which nuclear seems like the best fit. The tail risk could materialize from different sources; could be an asteroid, nuclear war, weird weather patterns etc. nuclear would chug along in most of these conditions. So if I would be a policy maker or decision maker, I would definitely invest in nuclear and maintain an industry regardless of the initial cost. I would try to make it as cheap as possible.
Grid operators already manage this through resource-adequacy modelling, reserve margins, and ancillary services, preferably procured through market mechanisms when needed.
That’s the sensible way to handle tail risk: identify plausible contingencies, quantify them, and maintain enough margin to cover them.
Designing the whole system around every conceivable extreme scenario would be unnecessarily expensive.
reddalo · · focus · HN ↗
The referendum that made nuclear energy illegal in Italy was held right after the accident of Chernobyl; people voted with their gut, not with their mind.
Curiously enough, some Italian town signs still have a small sub-sign reading "denuclearized municipality" (example: <a href="https://live.staticflickr.com/1421/712461235_e46a2c7db5_z.jpg" rel="nofollow">https://live.staticflickr.com/1421/712461235_e46a2c7db5_z.jp... )
icantevenhold · · focus · HN ↗
Since all plants in Italy are closed since the 90s won’t it take decades and billions of tax euros to get them back operational again?
sndcr · · focus · HN ↗
ViewTrick1002 · · focus · HN ↗
Studies are converging on renewable energy systems being cheaper in climates ranging from Australia to the Nordics:
Some recent ones:
Finland, 2025: nuclear scenarios 71–84% higher system cost; unrestricted least-cost optimization builds zero new nuclear. <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544225042720" rel="nofollow">https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036054422...
Denmark, 2026: system-level LCOE including storage, flexibility and system integration; renewables substantially cheaper than nuclear. <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544226009837" rel="nofollow">https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036054422...
Australia, CSIRO + AEMO GenCost 2025–26: whole-system modelling including transmission, storage and firming; renewables + storage remain the lowest-cost net-zero pathway. <a href="https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/Electricity-transition/GenCost" rel="nofollow">https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/Ele...
chris_va · · focus · HN ↗
And, even under ideal conditions, baseload is still quite hard. Especially in Southern Europe (e.g. which has quite a bit less land than Australia, and less wind than the nordic countries).
Fundamentally, I agree that it boils down to cost, and the people writing $XXB checks are generally pretty good at financial modeling. If nuclear makes sense, and the regulations allow it, they will build it. However, it's fighting against a highly variable, zero-marginal-cost renewable market with something that is high capex. Same reason people don't build new coal in the US despite certain politicians trying to popularize it.
My guess... If it does take off, either it will have to be wildly cheap (unlikely), or there are geopolitical concerns about the gas backup that Italy currently relies on so heavily to make the renewables work.
lifty · · focus · HN ↗
ViewTrick1002 · · focus · HN ↗
We fix tail risks when we encounter them. Not by envisioning your pet ones to make your solution fit.
psini · · focus · HN ↗
You're suggesting to start fixing the issue after the blackout happens?
ViewTrick1002 · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
ViewTrick1002 · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
ViewTrick1002 · · focus · HN ↗
That’s the sensible way to handle tail risk: identify plausible contingencies, quantify them, and maintain enough margin to cover them.
Designing the whole system around every conceivable extreme scenario would be unnecessarily expensive.
ViewTrick1002 · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
UltraSane · · focus · HN ↗