Italy had shut down its nuclear reactors with a referendum following the Chernobyl disaster, but the current Berlusconi government decided to return back to nuclear energy, as oil/gas prices are soaring.
The first new reactors will be operational within 5 years.
2008-05-22 12:53
Italy to return to nuclear power
Construction of new generation plants to start within 5 yrs
(ANSA) - Rome, May 22 - Industry Minister Claudio Scajola on Thursday confirmed that Italy will return to nuclear power and promised that construction on new generation plants would begin within the current legislature.
Speaking at the annual assembly of the industrial employers' association Confindustria, Scajola said that ''we can no longer put off an action plan to return to nuclear power. Within this legislature we will set the first stone for the construction in our country of a group of new generation nuclear power plants''. ''Only with nuclear power will we be able to produce energy on a large scale, in a safe way, at competitive prices and with respect for the environment,'' the minister added.
He then went on to urge Italy's industrial and business class to provide ''credible solutions for the disposal of nuclear waste''.
Italy, Scajola observed, ''needs energy at competitive prices, in sufficient quantities and under guaranteed conditions. Our current energy bill is some 60 billion euros and forces us to have a trade deficit''.
''We find ourselves way behind because of the delays and inefficiencies which followed the last national energy plan 20 years ago. The time has come to turn the page and a new national energy strategy will presented for public debate through a national conference on energy and the environment,'' Scajola said.
Italy abandoned nuclear energy after a 1987 referendum, whose result was strongly influenced by the Chernobyl disaster in Russia the previous year.
obviously plans have made drafted and prepared as long as the previous 21 years
they simply needed for the authorizations to really start
Frech controlled italian energy Edison group agree with the assesment
Carla Bruni
Scajola Greenlights Nuclear Energy
New generation power stations before end of legislature. ENEL says it is ready but projects must have public approval.
ROME - Italy has changed tack and decided to go with nuclear energy. “Before the end of this legislature, we will lay the first stone for the construction of a group of new-generation nuclear power stations in Italy”, announced the minister for economic development, Claudio Scajola, in the course of a speech to the Confindustria manufacturers’ association. The minister went on: “Only nuclear facilities make it possible to produce energy on a large scale, safely and at competitive prices, while respecting the environment”.
BERLUSCONI’S PLEDGE – The decision to back nuclear energy “is a solemn commitment by the Prime Minister Berlusconi to the new government’s act of faith. We will honour that pledge with conviction and determination”. Mr Scajola pointed out the need to draw up “a national energy strategy including priorities, guidelines and implementation tools for the short and long term” and which will be submitted for public consultation at a national conference for energy and the environment.
LEGAMBIENTE – “Here we go again with the fairy tale about nuclear power solving all of Italy’s energy problems” was the comment on the news from Legambiente. “Before it starts flinging atoms around”, said Legambiente president, Vittorio Cogliati Dezza, “the government should tell us where it intends to get the money to build the power stations from. To take one example, the first and so far only nuclear reactor commissioned in western Europe after Chernobyl, on the island of Olkiluoto in Finland, has already overshot its budget by 35%. And the US Energy Information Administration – not some bunch of eco-fanatics, mark you – says that electricity from a new nuclear power station is 15% more expensive than electricity from natural gas, even without factoring in disposal of the waste and decommissioning the power station itself. By ‘new generation’, Mr Scajola means ‘fourth generation’, which is still in the early stages. If all goes well, power stations of that type will be available in 20-25 years”. Legambiente also asks the government to say where it wants to build the new power stations.
ENEL READY – “From a technical point of view, ENEL is ready”, said the power giant’s CEO Fulvio Conti, commenting on the government’s announcement on nuclear energy in Italy. “The legislature’s five-year term could be a feasible timescale” but what is needed is “an up-to-date regulatory framework and a strong commitment to the project from the territory”.
EDISON WILL PLAY ITS PART – There was another positive reaction to Mr Scajola’s statement from Umberto Quadrino, CEO of Edison, Italy’s second-largest power company. “The new government’s willingness to consider nuclear energy, and more generally diversification of the energy mix, is particularly praiseworthy. Edison is ready to do its part and work with the government to carry through this process”.
GREENPEACE: “UNACCEPTABLE” – According to the international environmentalist organisation, Greenpeace, “the government’s announcement is unacceptable and sounds like a declaration of war. Is the government thinking about re-opening the debate with decree laws? It will get the response it deserves”, said Giuseppe Onufrio, campaign director for Greenpeace Italia. “What is needed is less red tape for renewable sources and the launch of a national plan for energy efficiency, which could offer, for less than the cost of production, the equivalent of fifteen power stations by 2020. That is the road to go down, not the nuclear one”.
English translation by Giles Watson
www.watson.it
Article in Italian
Except building a 100% copy of an existing plant, I cannot believe that.
It took us like half a trillion dollars and so many years to be able to produce most of our electricity from nuclear energy. I'm laughing my ass off reading the very chaotic Italian Gov thinks they can manage to produce enough electricity just by starting now. They are doing too little, too late. France not only have the reactors, but we also control most Uranium mines in Africa, Canada and Australia. They will fail and will be even more dependent on our electricity, just like the British.
---------------------------
De Gaulle to the General Koenig, Norman hero of Bir Hakeim: "Hear and tell your troops: the whole of France is watching you, you are our pride."[
of course I agree with you EDF has less competence in the matter
but uranium mines aren't a problem
there is much more production then demand on the market and lot of facilities in many countries aren't operative just cause all the present consumers have yet their sources and they procěduce enough for that
Luckily Sweden has the largest Uranium deposits in the World together with Canada and Australia but we have chosen nevertheless to import all uranium and not mine anything here because of the small but evident risks of conteminationa and perhaps also a wise strategic economical outlook for the future of them being more worth then when the total global deposits become more scarce perhaps
The UK produces only 363 Billion KWH for France's 543 Billion KWH. 19% of your electricity is nuclear, 80% for France. In addition 15% of France electricity is from hydro (consumes no fuel). You'll never have as much reactors as us because 1) you never invested as much as France in that source of energy 2) the UK is a tiny overpopulated island (less than half the size of France); you don't want a big nuclear plants near a huge city.
---------------------------
De Gaulle to the General Koenig, Norman hero of Bir Hakeim: "Hear and tell your troops: the whole of France is watching you, you are our pride."[
In Sweden developmental uranium mining of oil shale deposits took place at Ranstadsverket between 1965 and 1969. The goal was to make Sweden self-supplying with uranium. The high operating costs of the pilot plant (heap leaching) due to the low concentration of uranium in the shale and the, at that time, availability of comparatively cheap uranium on the world market, caused the mine to be closed, although a much cheaper and more efficient leaching process, using sulfur-consuming bacteria, had by then been developed. Since 2005 there have been investigations on opening new uranium mines in Sweden.
I may have been wrong but I read in a swedish article that the known swedish uranium deposits should make out 15% of the worlds global known deposits and 80% of Europes that should have been the case know I found another english graph of the global reserves that on the oppiste din`t even include the swedish deposits at the top ten list, but I don`t know if they just included the reserves in the mines that are exploited or also the ontouched areas which is the case in Sweden were mining still is forbidden
btw Ranstad was closed at a time when the methods of mining the uranium didn`t suit that geological place well today the methods are more efficient
but the main reason for closing it where political the anti nuclear parties and movement that pressured the government both from without and from within the Social Democratic party
This message has been edited by Magnus4 on May 27, 2008 10:56 PM This message has been edited by Magnus4 on May 26, 2008 4:06 PM This message has been edited by Magnus4 on May 26, 2008 4:02 PM
(AGI) - Rome, 26 May. - The return of nuclear energy to Italu is "necessary". This was said by the nuclear physicist Fabio Pistella, who has been the director general of ENEA for 16 years and for 4 years he was president of the Italian National Research council and is currently chairman if CNIPA, the Italian National Centre for Computing in the civil service. The importance of the re-launch of nuclear energy in Italy, explained Pistella to AGI, is based on various deductions: "From one point of view, we are the only country in the G( which does not use nuclear energy. If we look at it from the point of view of controlling CO2 emissions into the atmosphere, I can't see why we should reject an approach which has positive consequences. Furthermore, from the point of view of strategic vulnerability, I would prefer to have uranium than a pipeline which runs the risk of being disrupted by someone who controls the tap at the other end". "Frankly
