Italian News by RSSAgenzia Nova: Giappone-Filippine: "Nikkei", aziende giapponesi caute sugli investimenti nonostante la visita di Marcos (2)
27 mag 05:05 - (Agenzia Nova) - Tra i principali problemi segnalati dalle imprese figurano anche i lunghi contenziosi sui rimborsi Iva. La... (Git)
Converting to nuclear power would not solve Italy’s energy problem, but would drive up public debt. Therefore…
Costi iniziali straordinariamente high; investment return times too long; “End-of-Life” costs of plants and managing gigantic waste and a levelized cost of energy (LCOE) higher than major renewable sources. Beyond the propaganda, there are numerous reasons why nuclear conversion would not solve Italy’s energy problem. Neither in the immediate, nor even in the distant future.
Over 20 billion just to start
The first hurdle is initial investment costs, which, according to the Politecnico di Milano, would start from a minimum of 20 billion euros. For each “SMR” (Small Modular Reactor) reactor or “third generation” reactor – a misleading definition, as these plants use the same thermodynamic principles and the same physics as reactors from the 1960s and 1970s, without increasing safety – optimistic estimates speak of a cost of 3.5 billion euros and construction times that exceed 10-15 years, including design, regulatory approval and construction.
Italy has also dismantled its industrial supply chain, so it would have to purchase reactors paying expensive patents and componentry to foreign consortia (French, American or Korean), from which it would then depend for maintenance.
Public debt at an all-time high and investments that start to make sense only in 2040
All studies – pro or con the atom – then argue that a nuclear turnaround would have a huge impact on our public debt. Our country would face strong difficulties in obtaining the necessary capital, even due to the historical absence of private capital (which does not invest without massive state guarantees). Without counting that the long construction times do not even tempt businesses, which face the energy crisis now, not in 2040, when the investment will begin to produce its effects.
Only decommissioning has already cost us 12.9 billion
And still, the total calculation must include the costs for dismantling power plants at the end of their life and managing the national deposit of radioactive waste, which ultimately burdens citizens' bills in the form of system charges for decades to come. Dismantling a single plant costs an average of 500 million euros, but complex cases such as that of Sellafield in the UK predict costs of 60 to 140 billion pounds over 120 years.
In Italy, the management of the “old nuclear” (dismantling and waste) has already reached a calculated cost of at least 12.9 billion euros, financed through system charges in electricity bills.
According to the “100% Renewable Network”, in the EU the most recent estimate of 2019 of the expected cost of managing radioactive waste generated by nuclear power plants, excluding dismantling, was between 422 and 566 billion euros. Furthermore, it should be remembered that only the storage of high and medium radioactivity waste, of which our country is still waiting for (the “suitable areas” have been identified, but nothing has yet been decided, due to the protests of local populations) will cost at least 1.5 billion euros (although environmentalists estimate at least 8 billion).
So, in light of all this, a nuclear plan like the one hypothesized for Italy of 40 GW, according to environmental associations, could cost a total of between 275 and 400 billion euros.
But the kilowatt of nuclear energy would still be more expensive than renewables
But then would energy be cheaper? No. The levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of “new generation” nuclear is indeed significantly higher than that of photovoltaics and wind turbines on land. As stated by the International Energy Agency (World Energy Outlook 2024): “in Europe in 2023 the cost of generating electricity – considering all costs – produced by new nuclear power plants would have been of 170 $/MWh, compared to 50 $/MWh of photovoltaics (3.4 times less than nuclear) and that of onshore wind at 60 $/MWh (2.8 times less) and that of offshore wind at 70 $/MWh. Even in 2030 and 2050 the nuclear remains more expensive than renewables, with a difference of 100 $/MWh compared to solar for 2030 and 2050, 80 $/MWh for onshore wind, for 2030 and 75 $/MWh for 2050. And for offshore wind of 90 $/MWh for 2030 and 2050.
Finally a figure for all: often Italian supporters of nuclear cite that of France as a successful example. False: EDF, the company that manages nuclear power plants, heavily indebted, in 2023 was entirely nationalized, with a cost of over 9 billion on taxpayers.
#Italy #first #SmallModularReactor #third #French #American #Korean #Sellafield #Europe #Italian #France
