Why is the article so uncritical? It just takes a quick wikipedia run to see how ludicrous this is:
Fusion power is a proposed form of power generation that would generate electricity by using heat from nuclear fusion reactions.
By 2030 they have that up and running? 🤣
And “new-generation fission” is just a wishy-washy cover-your-ass term. Could mean anything. Wikipedia brings up a coupleof pages that are again full of terms like “proposed”, “suggested”, “might”.
And then there’s this:
The Italian Council of Ministers approved a plan on Friday to revive nuclear power, reversing the anti-nuclear stance solidified by referendums in 1987 and 2011.
I basically agree with the idea of reaching energy independence and carbon neutrality fast but this does not seem to be the way; the cynicism expressed in other comments is more realistic.
The strategy focuses on advanced technologies, including Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), microreactors, and fourth-generation fission technology. The plan also includes investments in nuclear fusion, reflecting a long-term commitment to sustainable energy development.
They aren’t planning to have fusion by 2030, just to invest in it. Also fourth generation reactors do exist and multiple are in the demonstration phases.
Whether Italy will have the funds and expertise to pull it off before 2030 is definitely questionable, but I think you’re misinterpreting and/or misrepresenting what is being reported here.
Finally, the article doesn’t have be pro or contra. It just has to report facts, which is what it’s doing. Why is your expectation for it to take a stance one the issue? Shouldn’t neutral reporting be what we expect? Do you want people making up their mind for you?
Why is the article so uncritical? It just takes a quick wikipedia run to see how ludicrous this is:
By 2030 they have that up and running? 🤣
And “new-generation fission” is just a wishy-washy cover-your-ass term. Could mean anything. Wikipedia brings up a couple of pages that are again full of terms like “proposed”, “suggested”, “might”.
And then there’s this:
I basically agree with the idea of reaching energy independence and carbon neutrality fast but this does not seem to be the way; the cynicism expressed in other comments is more realistic.
Did you miss this?
They aren’t planning to have fusion by 2030, just to invest in it. Also fourth generation reactors do exist and multiple are in the demonstration phases.
Whether Italy will have the funds and expertise to pull it off before 2030 is definitely questionable, but I think you’re misinterpreting and/or misrepresenting what is being reported here.
Finally, the article doesn’t have be pro or contra. It just has to report facts, which is what it’s doing. Why is your expectation for it to take a stance one the issue? Shouldn’t neutral reporting be what we expect? Do you want people making up their mind for you?