Still with nuclear power?
Nuclearists have become like Apple fanatics: just touch their favorite toy and they go to flea at everything you write. But the point is, they don't touch the problem in the end. If I give you the example of the closure of courses in nuclear engineering (except, they tell me, some) as an example of the destruction of the supply chan, you do not come to me to say "but no, there are still active courses", you have to show me that the supply chain exists in Italy.
And this is because even if the universities are there, what do they give you? They give you junior graduates who never got their hands on a reactor. As if to say "I have read a lot of books on boxing, I want to get in the ring". Go ahead, I wonder why I won't bet on you.
Someone says “but ENEA has the skills”. I know, you will feel old if I tell you that ENEA's expertise dates back 40 years. But it is so'. Time passes. The boobs go limp. The hair falls out. And ENEA has OLD skills.
And this for the simple reason that it shut down the last experimental reactor, that of the Brasimone power plant, a few years ago. But it was a reactor built with the technologies of 30 years ago.
If we then go and see what ENEA's experience consisted of, we discover that it was not really decisive. First of all because the central four (Borgo Sabotino, Sessa Aurunca, Trino and Corso) were small: all were single-reactor power plants.
NOBODY had an Italian reactor. Of the four reactors, the one from Latina was a Magnox built in the UK, while the others were from Westinghouse (USA). So not only is there no supply chain in Italy today: it wasn't even then.
In any case, these were small power plants that could at most contribute 3/4% of the requirement. So far comes the “know how” of ENEA, to which today, after thirty years, with the staff of the period now retired, without having NEVER seen a real reactor, you ask to supply 40% of the needs.
But the ENEA argument; such as the argument that some faculties have a degree course in nuclear engineering to facilitate the expatriation of graduates, are not arguments. Because the whole decision-making process that leads to nuclear power is wrong.
I have happened to participate in the choice of technologies, and also for projects that I would define as “big ones” (400 million people who send data are enough?), Or demanding ones. And I have to tell the fans of the awesome Nuclear and where to find it, that honestly that's not the way technologies are chosen. And consequently, the bad faith of the nuclear advocates is evident.
I do not go into the details of the interminable meetings, but if you observe how it happens that professionals choose a technology to solve the problem (even before a strategy to do it) you will immediately notice that it is a choice, or a comparison between different possibilities.
Nobody says "we choose X technology because it is cool and because it does what we want". A horse is cool, it can carry people, but it loses when compared to the train.
What is missing is confrontation. And it is the comparison with a source that already exists (and therefore it should NOT be excluded from the comparison), and that can have its say. When you then do your “pro / cons Matrix”, I expect to see them all.
Currently, among the sources (even if little used) there is also the geothermal, which is now marginal, but it is not a topic. It is marginal TODAY.
The thing that makes me laugh about these nuclear fans is that not only do they not compare, but they systematically exclude an energy source that has a potential about 10 times the national consumption, and don't talk about it.
The newspapers do not mention it. Politicians don't talk about it. Not discussed on TV.
If we consider that on Italian TV I see Corona in Berlinguer's broadcasts, the complete absence of the geothermal power plant from the debate makes us understand one thing: it is voluntarily and knowingly censored.
I see people who propose without problems to produce the entire Italian needs only with wind power and solar panels, which is obvious bullshit (but not for the question of continuity, the problem is more complicated and consists in wondering how to manage a grid with two million microscopic producers: putting power into a grid is not as simple as you think), but I don't see people mentioning the fact that geothermal in Italy is drilling less than in other countries, and that with a territory that in fact lies on two faults Italy sits on a practically inexhaustible source.
Yeah this is suspect, and it tells me "bad faith". And I certainly wouldn't have people in bad faith build a dangerous thing.
In the choice of technologies (which is ALWAYS done by comparison between the existing ones), two things that are at the top of the tables are the delivery times and the necessary investments.
Speaking of investments, so to speak, even if you were willing to "pay a lot", however, the money must be planned. They have to be budgeted. You still need to set aside the X digit, and then compare that number with the other Xs of the other technologies.
The problem with nuclear power is that upfront costs are literally unpredictable. If you ask any consultant or expert or builder "how much does a power plant cost me", and they answer you with a figure, it's not honest.
It is not honest because in the experience we have the construction costs normally go beyond the budgeted, starting from double and in some cases even ten times as much.
Imagine that you are a consultant, and the client asks you “nice project. When does it cost me? " And you "it costs you 10, but also 50, but also 100". That looks you in the face and asks if you are crazy.
If you put "costs ranging from 10 to 100, if the builder does not fail in the meantime" in the table, and in the "geothermal" line write "it costs you 35 and they sign it with blood leaving their daughters hostage", you understand that this what would weigh on the choice.
But no one acts by comparison, as you do when you work, but they just use "Apple fan" arguments.
Construction times also play a role in the table. Nuclear has an extravagant feature: at the time of construction you have to add a number that goes from five to fifteen years more than expected.
Now you are the consultant, you have your stakeholder in front of you, that is the one who invests, and he asks you "hey, but when will I start to see my money coming back?". And the answer you give is: “Calenda says seven years, but also twelve, or fifteen, or seventeen, because this happens with nuclear power”. They look you in the face and ask if you are crazy (in case you were advocating the proposal: otherwise they thank you for avoiding anal sex).
Does anyone who proposes nuclear power know they are proposing a technology with a fucking shit time of implementation, and with basically random costs? And who should invest, who would ACCEPT to invest, after a case history like that of nuclear power?
The answer is clear: but the state, of course . And there is truth in this, because in the increase in costs and times, almost always (or at least in a high number of cases) the state had to intervene to put things back on track. With taxpayer's money.
It is an embarrassing case study, but in the end it is saying “we know that they will be mafia contracts, rigged, inflated, which will end in biblical times and which will cost unpredictable figures. Face it. "
To say it all, therefore, nuclear power has, in comparison, a "small" problem of costs, of timing, which disqualifies it from any other source.
But why is this absurd method used to carry on a debate that should be done in a more serious way? I can only use my experience and give some anecdotes.
- Protect a regime of bad practices that has lasted, consolidated, for decades.
I give an example. We enter a large German company to help them get out of a cul de sac situation, which they pulled on themselves by entering the digital world, of which they were (like ALL houses of that type, mind you) very fasting.
When we approach procurement to understand how much the current situation costs and define priorities, they prevent us from physically entering the building. So let's say the company's board of directors sent us. Nothing, we cannot enter, and then they tell us that no one there 'speaks English, and when we point out that we also speak German they tell us that they speak "ethnic German" there. No kidding. The Board of Directors didn't send us there the second time with a broader mandate: the CEO simply resigned recently. Tip: If a board hires strategy and technology consultants to figure out what you did, open the fucking door when they ring. We are nice and kind people. Keep us out no good.
This type of closing attitude towards good practices is encountered when in the past we proceeded in an absurd way for years and years, often fomenting a technological malpractice (when you enter and see equipment that is little used, not used, never consolidated, etc.), and you don't want an assessment to bring up years of bad practices.
Introducing a few nuclear power plants but not a couple of dozen geothermal power plants could reveal, for example, that the Italian grid "has problems".
- Corruption.
It may happen, as consultants, that the client asks you to exclude the best options from the choice. The excuses are always the same "in the past we have had problems", or "we have heard things about them". In reality it happens that in large companies corruption is endemic: since it is not a crime until the company denounces it, and the extortionists should report it, you understand that practically with the purchasing offices there is "lammerda" .
So it happens to you that "the winner must be that". In that case, stop insisting: the winner must be that. It is already decided.
And sometimes I get the impression that among foreign reactor manufacturers there has been a competition to convince politicians that nuclear must be done.
In this case, from experience, I know they will. Except then, in a few years, to desperately look for an "exit strategy", to avoid ending badly.
Corruption may not come from reactor manufacturers: the whole talk is "we power the industry, at low cost, at the expense of the state." So it could for example be Confindustria.
In any case, I do not see any comparison made with other technologies for which I am already assuming a certain bad faith.
As usual when I talk about energy, I hasten to say that increasing production is the right answer to the wrong problem. Keeping the price as low as Putin has not only eliminated alternatives, but has also hit renewables, and efficiency.
It hit renewables because electricity was indexed to the cost of gas: with super-cheap gas, renewables apparently had an advantage: in reality, everything was flattened by gas.
The second point was efficiency. It is true that if you have a blast you don't have many choices and your bill will kill you. But it is also true that not everyone has blast furnaces. And I see in the Italian newspapers that there are bars and restaurants that are in danger of closing.
And here I would like to ask the managers of the premises "sorry, how much have you invested in the last ten years to lower consumption"?
And this is important to ask all companies, because we know one thing very well:
When a raw material is abundant and cheap, nobody cares to really optimize its consumption. Even if everyone says they are "green".
It is a known behavior of the markets, so I would exclude that it went differently. For example, the average size of American cars is due to the relatively low fuel cost.
I don't want to give trite examples: you know well that often when you pass on the sidewalk you find yourself with an automatic door that opens and a gust of cold air conditioning hits you. No one has ever looked for a solution, for the simple reason that it wasn't worth it. The bartender wastes and then complains that he has huge bills.
The same goes for the savings of the population: they are very capable of saving on things that do not count, and then leave the waste at full speed.
And the response of the population in this regard is always the most "penitenziagite" one possible. I see some BULLS who go around saying that "but I take a shower every three days to save". Good jerk.
You could actually give it a try, asshole: take a bucket and a watch, and watch how much water comes out of your shower every minute. (if you don't have a graduated bucket know that a liter of water weighs a kilo, so you can only get on a scale with and without a bucket).
I did. My shower seems sized for a car wash, and so it was doing 16 liters per minute. What did I do?
With a few euros you can buy a limiter, and your shower will go from 16 liters per minute up to four: in practice, you shower every four days, only you do it every day. And don't smell like goats.
What is the problem with this solution? Which is simple, feasible, and at most you have to add a hand shower that goes with less water. And being feasible, nobody tells you about it.
And why is this? What is the purpose of ordering cities in northern Germany to take a cold shower? That nobody will.
The point, that is, is that we intend to subsidize energy to industrialists. To do this you need a plan that fails because no one puts it into practice. When citizens refuse to take a cold shower or take it every week and the plan fails, the government will be called upon to subsidize industries. In two ways:
- giving money to industries that have never been optimized
- building nuclear power plants at their own expense, with unknown costs, which, however, who cares so much the taxpayer pays
Nuclear energy is the best way to bring the state to subsidize the energy of those who, for at least 30 years, have done nothing to consume less:
Entrepreneurs.