It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Enel SpA and its partner, France’s Electricite de France SA, will invest as much as 18 billion euros ($25.8 billion) to build four nuclear plants in Italy.
Enel Chief Executive Officer Fulvio Conti, speaking in Rome today, said Italy’s return to nuclear power would involve “investments of between 16 billion euros and 19 billion euros.” He didn’t give a timeline.
Italy outlawed nuclear power in a 1987 referendum. Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s government has taken steps to reverse opposition to nuclear reactors and plans to build new plants with French help. The first plant is scheduled to be finished in 2020.
There are only two kinds of people that are in favour of nuclear power, namely those who are ill-informed and those that stand to profit from it. There is no such thing as a safe nuclear power station. Not a single insurance company anywhere in the world has ever been willing to insure any nuclear power station. No safe system has yet been discovered for disposing of radioactive waste. Nuclear power is not cheap and the costs involved in the construction, operation and decommissioning of a nuclear power station far exceed the value of the power that it generates. Nuclear power is always paid for by the country’s citizens, either in the form of an extra levy on their utility bills or via their taxes. Nuclear power is generated using Uranium, a limited resource that will be exhausted within the next 50 years.
There is a huge debate here. In Rome, people tend to not want nuclear power.
Here are some reflections by Italy's largest consumer watchdog blog (one of the largest in europe)
Hypocrisies of the anti-nuclear power/renewables advocates
1. They claim renewables can replace fossil fuels, then can’t see the problem with leaning on fossil fuel gas to back them up when they fail to do so.
4. They claim we don’t need baseload power, then eagerly promote renewable baseload alternatives e.g., geothermal and solar with heat storage.
2. They claim nuclear can’t load follow (it does in France...), but ignore the fact that renewables can’t supply electricity on-demand...
6. They support subsidies for renewables but not for nuclear power. Yet they claim in the same breath that renewables are economic and nuclear is not.
12. They complain that nuclear power uses too much water, but ignore the fact that many renewables use just as much if not much more, e.g. geothermal, hydro.
13. They claim nuclear power is too expensive, but ignore the impossible costs involved in scaling renewables to the point where they can deliver the same amount of power.
14. They argue against the recycling of nuclear waste, but promote it (as they should) as a solution to their own toxic waste.
18. They dismiss as unreliable those papers from climate sceptics that have not been peer reviewed, yet are happy to quote nonsense studies like SSL as gospel!
19. They disregard conspiracy theories about statements from the IPCC, NASA, Hadley Centre etc., yet consider economic assessments of nuclear energy from the OECD (and similar agencies) to be biased industry shilling, preferring instead to latch onto gross outliers like the Severance ’study’.
20. If someone like me comes out supporting nuclear power, then I’m no longer worth listening to because I’ve become an ‘uncritical advocate’, whereas if someone like me comes out promoting solar power I’d be one of those brave and righteous voices supporting a clean energy future.
21. They ignore all information published on the web site of the Nuclear Energy Institute – no matter what the real source, yet often quote statistics and projections into the future from the American Wind Energy Association.
22. They claim to be very concerned about CO2 emissions and then cheerfully align in political battles with the natural gas industry.
26. They claim that nuclear energy, which has already demonstrated its utility in electrical production, ship propulsion and district heating systems will not do much to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but wind turbines, geothermal and solar collectors will create energy independence.
31. They highlight resource constraints in the finite supply of uranium (ignoring IFR reactors) that would make nuclear unviable as a long term energy source, yet they disregard the much greater resource constraint in the small amount of Lithium available for Lithium – Ion bateries that would be essential as part of large scale renewable power. (Unless we can find a better way of storing energy, large scale renewable power alone is not a long term solution, because we would run out of battery components long before we would run out of uranium under a nuclear energy scenario).
32. They claim that no one wants nuclear power in their backyard, but dismiss the fact that no one wants huge wind turbines next to their house
Originally posted by GhostR1der
Can't wait for the day of zero point.. seeing all these nuclear power stations makes me sick. We've had enough accidents already, can't keep going forever!
Major Nuclear Power Plant Accidents
December 12, 1952
A partial meltdown of a reactor's uranium core at the Chalk River plant near Ottawa, Canada, resulted after the accidental removal of four control rods. Although millions of gallons of radioactive water poured into the reactor, there were no injuries.
Fire destroyed the core of a plutonium-producing reactor at Britain's Windscale nuclear complex - since renamed Sellafield - sending clouds of radioactivity into the atmosphere. An official report said the leaked radiation could have caused dozens of cancer deaths in the vicinity of Liverpool.
A serious accident occurred during the winter of 1957-58 near the town of Kyshtym in the Urals. A Russian scientist who first reported the disaster estimated that hundreds died from radiation sickness.
January 3, 1961
Three technicians died at a U.S. plant in Idaho Falls in an accident at an experimental reactor.
July 4, 1961
The captain and seven crew members died when radiation spread through the Soviet Union's first nuclear-powered submarine. A pipe in the control system of one of the two reactors had ruptured.
October 5, 1966
The core of an experimental reactor near Detroit, Mich., melted partially when a sodium cooling system failed.
January 21, 1969
A coolant malfunction from an experimental underground reactor at Lucens Vad, Switzerland, releases a large amount of radiation into a cave, which was then sealed.
December 7, 1975
At the Lubmin nuclear power complex on the Baltic coast in the former East Germany, a short-circuit caused by an electrician's mistake started a fire. Some news reports said there was almost a meltdown of the reactor core.
March 28, 1979
Near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, America's worst nuclear accident occurred. A partial meltdown of one of the reactors forced the evacuation of the residents after radioactive gas escaped into the atmosphere.
February 11, 1981
Eight workers are contaminated when more than 100,000 gallons of radioactive coolant fluid leaks into the contaminant building of the Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah 1 plant in Tennessee.
April 25, 1981
Officials said around 45 workers were exposed to radioactivity during repairs to a plant at Tsuruga, Japan.
April 26, 1986
The world's worst nuclear accident occurred after an explosion and fire at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. It released radiation over much of Europe. Thirty-one people died iin the immediate aftermath of the explosion. Hundreds of thousands of residents were moved from the area and a similar number are belived to have suffered from the effects of radiation exposure.
March 24, 1992
At the Sosnovy Bor station near St. Petersburg, Russia, radioactive iodine escaped into the atmosphere. A loss of pressure in a reactor channel was the source of the accident.
In France's most serious nuclear accident, three workers were contaminated after entering a nuclear particle accelerator in Forbach without protective clothing. Executives were jailed in 1993 for failing to take proper safety measures.
Japan's Monju prototype fast-breeder nuclear reactor leaked two to three tons of sodium from the reactor's secondary cooling system.
The state-run Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation reprocessing plant at Tokaimura, Japan, contaminated at least 35 workers with minor radiation after a fire and explosion occurred.
September 30, 1999
Another accident at the uranium processing plant at Tokaimura, Japan, plant exposed fifty-five workers to radiation. More than 300,000 people living near the plant were ordered to stay indoors. Workers had been mixing uranium with nitric acid to make nuclear fuel, but had used too much uranium and set off the accidental uncontrolled reaction.
Originally posted by C0bzz
At best, to get the same output as these four Nuclear plants would require 11,924 of General Electrics largest wind turbines, with a total area of 85,852 acres, at a total cost of 75.52 billion dollars[/url], not including the cost of the land used. I say Italy is doing what should of been done a long, long time ago.
Originally posted by Signals
Green movements and the such (mindless drivel) are keeping this planet back
The problem with common perception of wind power or other large-scale renewable energy strategy is that many think of it as a complete alternative to nuclear or other fossil fuel, an 'either/or'.
The reason for the 400+% alternative energy infrastructure cost is that its assumed that all power production has to follow the same centralised generation model that we've had since the inception of the grid,
energy competitor to threaten their hegemony in the market through ensuring local planning laws restrict domestic and local community set-ups, pricing barriers, legislation and taxes on the technology available to install and grid-connect a domestic R.E. system etc.
Considering that out of the 100% of the electricity generated that leaves the power-station, what we domestic consumers actually have at our end of the supply chain amounts to some 10% of what left the powerplant...the other 90% gets lost in EM radiation, cable resistance, heat-loss at the voltage reduction substations down the chain, etc.
Energy losses in the U.S. T&D system were 7.2% in 1995, accounting for 2.5 quads of primary energy and 36.5 MtC. Losses are divided such that about 60% are from lines and 40% are from transformers (most of which are for distribution)
Technology Options 2003. (2003). US Climate Change Technology Program.
Its just a case of turning the attitude of 'Not In My Back Yard' to one of 'Whats In It For Me'
Seems that thinking outside of the mainsteam is no longer socially acceptable these days
The only reason for the concerted push toward nuclear power is that those who maintained and profited from the oil cartels have now moved into the Uranium market with just as finite resources as oil, if not more so.
Swallow the nuclear sales pitch and keep feeding same industrial model to ensure a healthy profit margin for the new 'UPEC' conglomerate, there's a good compliant citizen.
, but that means the big corporate power producers lose a slice of their vast profit margin.
Most Germans are in favor of the expansion of renewable energy -- provided the plants aren't built in their neighborhood. All over the country, local groups are coming together to stop solar, wind and biogas projects. But where can power plants be built if no one wants them in their backyard?
[A] coal-fired power plant was to be built in Lubmin, a nearby beach resort, but four citizens' initiatives blocked the project. Gulla heads the one in Greifswald. Instead of disbanding the group, he says, he wants to push for new regulations and a zoning plan that would ban the burning of coal in Lubmin altogether.