Italy Votes To Abandon Nuclear Power

ElementOfDestruction writes "Italy has joined Germany in halting the production of energy from atomic power generation. This differs from Germany in that the Italian decision was made by a public vote, rather than a government mandated shutdown. 57% of Italian Households voted in this public measure. While democracy should trump all, is it wise to hold majority opinion so high that it slows down progress?"

Comments

Re:The US did this in the 1970's

[tmosley]

Actually, what we did is much, MUCH worse. From fear of nuclear power, we have halted all progress in nuclear technology, leaving ancient reactor designs in deployment, while new, safe designs sit on the drawing board.

In a real way, fear of nuclear power caused Fukushima. That plant should have been decommissioned a decade ago in favor of one of the new generation of power plants, maybe even one that burns thorium, meaning they could have gotten rid of all that waste they instead stuffed into the attic hoping no-one would ever find out.

Wrong framing.

[Helpadingoatemybaby]

"Slow down progress?" That's just terribly obvious framing. Actually by voting this way they're speeding up progress towards modern renewables. After all, nuclear fission technology is not a "modern" technology, it's over a half century old and it's simply not needed anymore (Bonneville Power Administration shut down its nuclear plant for refueling and their coal plant was shut down because it was unnecessary and still had excess power to export -- 100% from renewables so please, please don't post stupidly about "baseline" power.)

They're in a particularly sunny climate, there are already rolling out solar thermal storage systems so that their solar can generate 24 hours per day, They have tidal sources which France used to generate hundreds of megawatts back in the 60's out of a single installation -- ignoring the efficiency increases of what we can do today.

Fuel is finite, so fuel based sources are out of date. Meanwhile, renewables just keep coming down in price. Solar dropped 20% last year alone, and is expected to drop another 20% this year. Meanwhile, nuclear keeps increasing in cost. Costs for implementation, fuel, owner's costs, massive grid tie-ins, and let's not even discuss the fact that they don't pay for their own insurance and push that on to the public purse in the event of a catastrophe.

So "progress?" I don't think that word means what you think it does. The first world has made it's decision and you can flog the dead horse of nuclear, but the only new adopters will be the third world and powers that want to refine for nuclear weapons, such as arabic countries, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Re:The US did this in the 1970's

[Anonymous Coward]

This whole conversation reminds me of the guys who insist that Vietnam was winnable. Nuclear died because it was uneconomical, costs were greater than just deaths (such as massive economic costs and long term illnesses), the Japanese who are about as efficient as any group on the planet couldn't do it safely -- as the Onion Put it "Nuclear Plants Perfectly Safe -- Unless Something Goes Wrong."

It's not that the majority is irrational, it's that you guys are as emotionally tied to dead nuclear as others are to a lost war.

Re:Terrible question

[Batmunk2000]

Absolute Democracy is the exact opposite of freedom. You cannot have a Right when all laws are subject to the will of the majority. The act of voting doesn't make a policy moral or even "effective." When your rights are violated it is little consolation whether it was done by a vicious dictator or by the voting of your neighbors. Both pure democracy and pure dictatorship are morally vacant and eventually, self-destructive. The only useful form of government is one that recognizes the individual and their inalienable rights.

Re:The US did this in the 1970's

[jmauro]

It's cheap until you ignore dismantling, cleanup costs, and insurance for if something goes wrong (think 100's of billions of dollars). This is what the US made the Nuclear operators consider in the 1970's for their proposals and why they became uneconomical.

Re:Italia's earthquakes

[MachineShedFred]

Yes, Japan is advanced.

No, Fukushima was not. First criticality at Fukushima was in the 1970s, meaning that construction started in the late 60s, meaning that they place was designed in the late 50's.

I don't think we can call anything that is 60 years old in design "advanced." Please stop distorting facts with your bias.