Italy Halts Nuclear Power Plans For One Year

MILAN -- The Italian government has put a one-year moratorium on plans to revive nuclear energy in a country that shut down its reactors more than 20 years ago.

Premier Silvio Berusconi's Cabinet approved the moratorium Wednesday in the wake of radiation leaks at a Japanese plant damaged after March 11 earthquake and tsunami.

Italians rejected nuclear power in a 1987 referendum following the Chernobyl disaster, forcing the shutdown of its four working plants.

Berlusconi's government pledged to revive nuclear power to reduce dependence on foreign oil and natural gas, but no sites have yet been chosen in the seismically active country.

Nuclear opponents say the moratorium is a ruse to delay a referendum on nuclear power until memories of the Japan disaster have dimmed.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

MILAN (AP) – The Italian government has put a one-year moratorium on plans to revive nuclear energy in a country that shut down its reactors more than 20 years ago.

Premier Silvio Berusconi's Cabinet approved the moratorium Wednesday in the wake of radiation leaks at a Japanese plant damaged after March 11 earthquake and tsunami.

Italians rejected nuclear power in a 1987 referendum following the Chernobyl disaster, forcing the shutdown of its two working plants.

Berlusconi's government pledged to revive nuclear power to reduce dependence on foreign oil and natural gas, but no sites have yet been chosen in the seismically active country.

Nuclear opponents say the moratorium is a ruse to delay a referendum on nuclear power until memories of the Japan disaster have dimmed.

(This version CORRECTS number of operational plants to four.)

Comments

[xdiesp]

06:54 PM on 04/24/2011

Italy has been a staunch opposer of nuclear energy, since Chernobyl. In rensponse, all its neighbours built their plants along its border. :°)

Berlusconi and his center-right coalition tried for years to build enough popular confidence to restart the nuclear program, because of the energy crisis. They almost succeded, then Fukushima shut them off once again.

[Kenz300]

03:44 PM on 03/25/2011

Nuclear energy is too dangerous and too expensive when you add in the cost
of dealing with storing waste and clean up from disasters. How much did it
cost to completely clean up Chernobyl? Oh -- they NEVER completely cleaned it up.
The cost was too high and it could not be done.

It is time to transition to safe, clean alternative energy. The technology for wind and solar
get better every year bringing down the cost and increasing the benefit.

[JShep]

04:14 PM on 03/24/2011

Environmentalists were able to stop the proliferation of nuclear power in the US in the 70"s. But what did we get in its place - more coal fired plants and their increase in pollutants and GHGs. To eliminate any further construction of nuclear plants without a clear detailed plan of how we will replace the lost power production is pure insanity. We need a detailed, scientific plan of how to get there, how long it will take and what it will cost. Until then we will just be trading hollow comments back and forth.

[Kassandra]

11:12 AM on 03/24/2011

I wish our government would allow US a referendum on what type of power generation we'd like to use

[mamacat]

12:26 AM on 03/24/2011

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

We humans tried using nuclear power to generate electricity, and we found that it is too dangerous. Time to move on.

[Chrystal Ji Davey]

08:30 PM on 03/23/2011

None (or not very many) of the comments are about Italy specifically...

People, this is the WRONG country to put nuclear reactors in.
Berlusconi wanting this is the ultimate example of his inability to have his own mind!!!
This man needs to be ousted like every other DICTAT0R to the south of Italy.

We were all taught in school (in Italy) that nuclear energy was pure evil.
While of course that's a pretty big exaggeration, HIS decision goes against the PUBLIC's.

AGAIN!

[netzwerg]

04:12 PM on 03/23/2011

"Five myths about green energy (The Washington Post)
http://www­.washingto­npost.com/­wp-dyn/con­tent/artic­le/2010/04­/23/AR2010­042302220.­html
The Real Problem With Renewables (Hint: It's physics) (Forbes)
http://www­.forbes.co­m/2010/05/­11/renewab­les-energy­-oil-econo­my-opinion­s-contribu­tors-rober­t-bryce.ht­ml
No amount of "political will" or lavish spending can get around the laws of physics."

____________________

American and European experts and scientists seem to be of entirely different opinions on the alternative energy subject. Too bad I could not find this report in english, only in German.
http://www.fvee.de/fileadmin/politik/10.06.vision_fuer_nachhaltiges_energiekonzept.pdf

[aligatorhardt]

03:45 AM on 03/24/2011

Read   http://ww.huffingtonpost.com/michael-rose/too-cheap-to-meter-the-to_b_835730.html
  nuclear power myths.

[Gebby]

11:54 AM on 03/24/2011

google 100% solar in twenty years and tell me what you find. since you are so sure.

[Overtone]

04:03 PM on 03/23/2011

An alternative to contemporary nuclear plants was demonstrated in Italy a few weeks ago.

That inexpensive, green, Low Energy Nuclear Reactor (LENR) is now in production.

It is inherently much safer than existing nukes and uses non-radioactive Nickel, not radioactive Uranium, as fuel.

Power cost is projected at one penny per kilowatt hour.

No nuclear waste is produced.

See Cold Fusion at www.aesopinstitute.org to learn more.

A one Megawatt heating plant is scheduled to open in Greece, in October.

A nuclear scientist has said when these compact modular units, which can be linked like solar panels to produce any desired power level, begin producing inexpensive electricity it will start a "stampede".

Competitive designs are being developed. Early regulatory approval may prove possible.

These developments could cost-competitively undercut any need for new Uranium fueled nuclear plant production.

And LENR designs have no possible chance of a meltdown!

They can serve as early building blocks for a 24/7 program of modular components - capable or producing decentralized energy generation.

Big is fragile and ugly. Small is still beautiful.

[netzwerg]

04:27 PM on 03/23/2011

Here's a presentation of that italian cold fusion reactor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-0WvK2b7dU

[Overtone]

04:50 PM on 03/23/2011

And here is another video with enough in English to make clear the meaning!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCdxpt86fv4&feature=related

[AlonzoQuijana]

02:39 PM on 03/23/2011

I'm investing heavily in coal stocks -- Peabody Energy (ticker symbol BTU) for growth and Penn-Virginia Resources (PVR) for income. China is putting on a new coal-fired electric plant every week. India is also turning to coal. The U.S. will never approve another nuke plant and is now, apparently, turning against nat gas (Obama has a dislike for nat gas and bias toward coal -- and corn for transportation fuels -- no one can figure out). And now Italy. Coal will see huge growth over the next few decades.

[williamg]

02:50 PM on 03/23/2011

Obama's Enthusiasm for Gas Drilling Raises Eyebrows


"President Obama's newfound interest in expanded natural gas drilling yesterday surprised many on all sides of the drilling debate, from environmentalists to drillers and even the coal industry.

Representatives of drilling groups said they had no idea that Obama would make natural gas his lead olive branch to the newly empowered Capitol Hill Republicans. But they were pleased that he did. ...

Obama's remarks seemed to refer to vast new sources of shale gas in Pennsylvania, Texas and their neighboring states. Improvements in "hydraulic fracturing" technology have allowed production from formations under those states previously thought to be too expensive to exploit

"We've got, I think, broad agreement that we've got terrific natural gas resources in this country," Obama said when he was pressed for issues on which he could compromise with Republican leaders. "Are we doing everything we can to develop those?"

Tucker said Obama's remarks were in line with the actions of some of his Cabinet departments.

"The president's remarks yesterday fit perfectly with a State Department that is actively looking to export the shale revolution globally, an Energy Department that views shale as a fuel with enormous potential for our future and an EPA that has consistently stated that the technology needed to produce shale gas is safe," Tucker said.

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/11/04/04greenwire-obamas-enthusiasm-for-gas-drilling-raises-eyeb-33483.html

[mamacat]

12:31 AM on 03/24/2011

In the short term -- over the next several decades -- natural gas makes sense. Cleaner than coal, safer than nuclear, plentiful, cheap, and easily used to generate electricity and heat.

In the long run, unless we find a way to actually remove CO2 from the atmosphere as fast as we have been putting in, using natural gas will be part of the problem, not the solution.

[Gebby]

11:56 AM on 03/24/2011

his interest in gas and nuclear is to pry some support from groups historically hostile to green clean energy, solar and wind. It is a political move also. keep that in mind.

[williamg]

02:39 PM on 03/23/2011

Rankings of US Energy Subsidies



Primary Energy Source ________Subsidies per Unit of Production

Natural Gas and Petroleum ...........................$0.25
Coal ............................................................$0.44
Hydroelectric.................................................$0.67
Biomass.......................................................$0.89
Geothermal ..................................................$0.92
Nuclear ........................................................$1.59
Wind ..........................................................$23.37
Solar ..........................................................$24.34
Refined Coal ...............................................$29.81

http://www.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/energy_subsidies.cfm


Subsidies per Unit of Production = number of US dollars subsidizing each megawatthour

[AlonzoQuijana]

02:44 PM on 03/23/2011

Thanks! Very helpful. I see the future in coal and nat gas. Easy to extract. Efficient conversion technology already exists. Sadly, Obama seems to be opposed to natural gas, so we'll probably end up exporting it via LNG tankers.

[mamacat]

12:40 AM on 03/24/2011

The figures are only for the year 2007.
If we were to go back to the subsidies used when nuclear plants were being built, we would see a huge cost per unit of production.
Coal is not efficient without rail to deliver it. When the railroads were being built, they got huge incentives from the federal government to offset their costs.
When the giant hydro-electric dams were being built, the subsidies going to that sector were, again, huge.

Once an infrastructure is built, the subsidies dwindle away, and the infrastructure may become self-sustaining.

In today's world, it is both appropriate and necessary that subsidies be used to encourage an alternative energy infrastructure, just as it was appropriate and necessary that in past eras we subsidized the construction of infrastructures supporting coal, hydroelectric, and nuclear.

[aligatorhardt]

03:52 AM on 03/24/2011

Well stated except it was never a good idea to encourage nuclear power.

[netzwerg]

02:29 PM on 03/23/2011

"And how many of those deep geothermal plants exist? Zero."

That's not true. The International Geothermal Association (IGA) has reported that 10,715 megawatts (MW) of geothermal power in 24 countries is online.
77 of them are in the US, The Geysers, a geothermal field in California being your largest.

Iceland (I know, small country, but still) alone get's about 30% of their electricity from geothermal plants.

[williamg]

02:33 PM on 03/23/2011

First off, geothermal resources aren't equal in all parts of the world. Assuming that since one country is able to tap into large georthermal resources doesn't mean that all can.

[AlonzoQuijana]

02:40 PM on 03/23/2011

I was in Iceland a few years ago. The geo-thermal there is amazing. Piped right into homes for hot water and heating. Unfortunately, the wells are incredibly smelly -- like rotten eggs / sulphur.

[netzwerg]

02:40 PM on 03/23/2011

That's not quite correct. Geothermal works everywhere, in some places you just have to drill deeper which makes it more expensive to install.

[John David Riser]

02:50 PM on 03/23/2011

You are referring to shallow geothermal plants. Not the same thing at all. One has the possibility of being used almost anywhere but isn't in use and is the subject only of research. The other is limited solely to areas with shallow geothermal activity. Furthermore, if that is all of the output for geothermal in the world, it shows how small a part it can play. It would take about thirteen of your average nuclear plants to supply that same power. And that's the average you get from the majority of the nuclear plants being forty year old fossils since we abandoned the first time out of fear. Geothermal is great, but it has limits as now practiced. And the potential of drilling deeper into the earth to spread its radius of influence deserves attention and investigation, but it speculative in both terms of cost and consequence.

[Marvelousdreams]

02:20 PM on 03/23/2011

Doesn't Italy have volcano and earth quake fault? They seem to be too smart to use nuclear power to boil water to turn turbines to get electricity.

[charles77]

02:58 PM on 03/23/2011

Stop it with the "boil water" bunk.

I realize the "Nuclear just boils water" line is a favorite of the anti-nuke crowd, and it may fool a few low information people into thinking, "well if it just boils water, why do we need it?"

Most are smart enough to know that all large power plants boil water to make electricity. Coal, Nuclear, GeoThermal, even concentrated solar.

No water being boiled = No electricity.

[Marvelousdreams]

03:20 PM on 03/23/2011

You're right, it has been over used. The point we are trying to make is...there are lots of other energy sources that will boil water to make electricity. Why use a planet killing technology?

[netzwerg]

02:00 PM on 03/23/2011

"27 Americans d/ie EACH DAY from the effects of fine particle pollution emitted by coal-power­ed electric plants. Globally, 320,000 people d/ie each year from burning fossil fuels."

Yes, that's why we must get rid of this stuff, in the US, in Europe, in Asia...

[williamg]

02:02 PM on 03/23/2011

How do we get rid of it? Simply saying "invest" isn't a sufficient answer. We are investing. We are giving out loan guarentees. We are giving out large subsidies.

How do we rid ourselves of it? Constructive answer please.

[netzwerg]

02:10 PM on 03/23/2011

The US is not even investing as much as Germany let alone Europe or China in alternative energies.

[netzwerg]

02:20 PM on 03/23/2011

As far as I know the US does not have a national energy plan. (Please correct me if I am wrong)

That would be a starter.

[PAGasDriller]

02:05 PM on 03/23/2011

Amen! Natural gas fired plants can be quickly and cheaply constructed to take over until renewables catch up.

[rpr]

02:36 PM on 03/23/2011

They are also a very good backup for wind and solar because they can be started and stopped quickly. And small combined cycle "neighborhood" plants can sell their waste heat as hot water, reaching 90% efficiency.

[aligatorhardt]

04:11 AM on 03/24/2011

Renewables will catch up by large investments, not by wasting time and money on any dirty power plants. Why build anything that is not the solution?

[netzwerg]

01:58 PM on 03/23/2011

"Renewables will never be able to replace fossil fuels and nuclear altogether­."

It all depends on the political will to do so.
In September 2010 the German government announced the following new aggressive energy targets:

Renewable electricity - 35% by 2020 and 80% by 2050
Renewable energy - 18% by 2020, 30% by 2030, and 60% by 2050
Energy efficiency - Cutting the national electrical consumption 50% below 2008 levels by 2050

I know this is quite an aggressive plan, but we are on a good way.

[PAGasDriller]

02:03 PM on 03/23/2011

I plan to have one billion dollars fall out of the sky into my backyard today. Hasn't happened yet. As technology advances we'll be able to move to renewables faster and faster, but it's going to take DECADES.

Natural gas is much cleaner, no mercury, 50% fewer GHG's than coal. It's here now, it's domestically sourced, it's WAYYY cheaper than oil. If L.A had 50% of their auto's running on CNG/LNG, THE SMOG WOULD BE GONE.

These are real goals we could be achieving in a few years not a few decades if we could just get past the fear-mongers who don't believe we can extract it safely (even though we have been for over 100 years).

[netzwerg]

02:07 PM on 03/23/2011

Natural gas has already peaked in the 70's and is and old horse. Not worth investing the future in, that's why no country is doing so.

[Eruch Adams]

02:10 PM on 03/23/2011

I think Germany isn't just pulling numbers out of thin air. They're doing this. Everyone is quoting some myth that America can't also do this, as if they KNOW this for sure. No one knows that. The point isn't to shut down every polluting plant tomorrow, the point is to not add new investments into polluting energy sources and put all that money and will into renewables in each and every state. Why can't it be done. If people hadn't been transfixed by lying politicians since the 80's, we could have been doing this all along. Why weren't we doing it back then? What mentality led up to this place and is that same type of thinking still pervasive in America today? I think so.

[williamg]

02:04 PM on 03/23/2011

Oh give me a break. Simply saying it, and getting it done, are two different things. How do you get it done? What does the legislation look like? What are the investments in?

[netzwerg]

02:08 PM on 03/23/2011

That's to much for a Huffpost comment, but here's a good starter for reading: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany

[aligatorhardt]

04:15 AM on 03/24/2011

If you really want to know visit  www.renewableenergyworld.com

[netzwerg]

01:39 PM on 03/23/2011

"But solar panels, wind turbines and biomass provide the U.S. with about 2% of our energy needs. They can't replace nuclear and fossil fuels anytime in the near, medium and even long term. So its time to get real."

Yes, true. The US is a different issue. In Germany about 17% are alternative energy, about the same amount as all our nuclear plants combined. Outlook is good that we can replace all our nuclear plants with alternative energy this decade.

[williamg]

01:41 PM on 03/23/2011

This decade?

The federal government alone will pay for 30% of your projects costs up front, in cash. That is one of a dozen or so subsidies. And still, renewable energy isn't growing fast enough.

How do you propose we grow renewables to the point they can replace nuclear, let alone burning fossil fuels?

[netzwerg]

01:44 PM on 03/23/2011

Yes, this decade. http://climateprogress.org/2011/03/15/march-15-news-non-nuclear-clean-energy-to-double-by-2020-clean-energy-companies-jump-for-second-day/

Of course it's a big investment by our government, but the fuel costs in the future will be zero.

[PAGasDriller]

01:45 PM on 03/23/2011

John Hanger, former Secretary of the PA DEP wrote a real nice blog about this today:

http://johnhanger.blogspot.com/2011/03/could-renewable-energy-replace-gas-or.html