Past and present nuclear industrial situation in Italy

Professor Ricotti, you have recently been appointed in the directive board of the Italian Nuclear Safety Agency (ASN), after being for many years full professor of Nuclear Power Plants at Politecnico di Milano. Could you briefly outline your career and your research areas, as well as your role in the ASN?

Marco Ricotti – In a few words, I got my MSc in Nuclear Engineering then a PhD on Science and Technology in Nuclear Power Plants at Politecnico di Milano, in the 90s. Today I’m full professor and deputy director of the new Department of Energy at the same university. My R&D interests are devoted to thermal hydraulics, safety systems, modeling and simulation, and economics of nuclear systems. In the last decade I spent most of my time in the development of a small-medium size, modular, integral reactor: the IRIS international project. IRIS is an integral PWR, a project able to involve 20 organizations from 10 countries during ten years of R&D activities, led by Westinghouse. Now the US company suspended its participation, but italian organizations are still developing the concept, with a large-scale testing facility planned and under construction. As well, my involvement in Generation IV lead cooled fast reactors (LFR) was increasing in the last years.

For my competences in these fields, from October 2010 I’ve been called by the Italian Ministry of Economic Development to the directive board of the « Agenzia per la Sicurezza Nucleare », the Italian Nuclear Safety Agency, together with other well known experts in Nuclear Power Plants, like professor Cumo, or an outstanding scientists in oncology and radiation effects on biology, the ASN president prof. Umberto Veronesi. The Agency is still in a start-up phase, I assume my assignments will be mostly in the safety-technical area than in the legal-organisational ones.

What about the future of the nuclear option?

MR – The very recent referendum in Italy on nuclear energy, obviously opens a new scenario for my country. The italian future, not only on nuclear option but on energy as a whole, is yet to be written.

The effects produced by the referendum should last for a limited period of time (someone says 5 years), but it was undoubtedly a clear political sign coming from italian citizens: 57% voters, 95% against the nuclear option. It was an anticipated result in the light of Fukushima accident. Almost the same result as in 87, after Chernobyl accident (this is the second referendum on the subject for Italy).

I suppose the italian electric company ENEL and other italian industries interested in the nuclear business will have to expand their nuclear activities abroad, for the next future, waiting for the domestic market.

The defeated energy plan was summarized by the numbers 50-25-25 by 2025: 50% electricity from fossil fuels, 25% from renewable, 25% from nuclear. That means roughly 13 to 15 GWe obtained by 8 to 12 new nuclear reactors, at least half of EPR type to be built by ENEL-EdF in cooperation with other international actors. The energy strategy was conceived to achieve a higher energetic autonomy for Italy. Nuclear or not, it is anyway a real necessity: we still depend on fossil fuels (hence from foreign countries, such as Russia or North-Africa states) on the tremendous share of 90%, dealing with energy in general, so to be severely concerned by possible foreign political instabilities. Moreover, this massive employment of gas (and partially oil) to produce electricity places Italy in a very bad position in terms of CO2 emissions. Therefore, the long term Italian strategy on energy and electricity is a concern. Today, after Libya and Fukushima events, and also after the announced reshape in photovoltaic subsidies, Italy has to think about. Italy sustains the largest photovoltaic subsidies in Europe, with a projection of 120 billion euros of bill on the shoulders of Italian electricity consumers in the next 20 years: this could turn out to be unaffordable.

Probably it would be wise to wait and see what kind of decisions will be taken at international as well as at european level: on nuclear, as well as on other energy sources.

Is Italy interested by the necessity of further safety controls on nuclear power plants ?

MR – My personal opinion is that the national interest in participating to the « stress tests » that have recently been requested by the European Commission should be doubly motivated. On technical grounds, safety controls are needed for both the nuclear power plants present in a close range at Italian borders (on France, Switzerland and Slovenia), both for the safety criteria and solutions adopted for the new IIIrd Generation reactors that are being and will be built in Europe in the next future. On political grounds, it should be very important to correctly inform italian citizens on those items.

Such an evaluation should have been taken into account for an informed decision. Unfortunately there wasn’t the chance to do it: the referendum came earlier. Moreover, as a paradox, after the voting came also the declaration by Japan that they will continue with nuclear energy option.

Which are the major challenges in this start-up phase?

MR – There are political, administrative, logistics difficulties since we have to reshape the mission (towards waste repository, decommissioning and stress tests) and we are in a start-up phase. Nowadays, ASN headquarter is yet to be identified in Rome. The human resources should be of 100 persons maximum with competences on nuclear plants and waste and radiation protection, mainly coming from ENEA (the Italian institution for research in atomic and alternative energies) and ISPRA (the Italian institute for environmental protection). The start-up budget should be in the order of some millions of euro, with the regime budget coming from services (i.e. only decommissioning, now). We are starting not from scratch but obviously from a non-optimal point, since the political sentiment has changed. There are therefore some delays. We were confident also in the support and partnership from international organizations, IAEA and Euratom above all, and from foreign colleagues. French ASN and US NRC were very willing in helping us in the launching phase, I hope there will be the same sentiment even after the changed conditions.

May an independent and scientific institution as ASN help in the next future to give objective scientific data, in order to improve people’s confidence towards the nuclear option?

MR – This is a key point for Italy, probably not only for my country. Besides political issues I don’t want to touch, before the referendum the « big missed » on all media and debates was an independent, credible, scientifically and technologically based information on the nuclear topic. A real pity.

In these last years and before Fukushima, Italian citizens changed a lot their mind after Chernobyl. They were more available and open minded to discuss and understand pros and cons of nuclear energy, the ideological and prejudicial positions were not so common. Some information initiatives on nuclear energy were launched, and several economists and politicians proposed a wide reconsideration of economical benefits of the nuclear option. But now Fukushima have turned back the hands of time.

The population confidence in the acceptance of the nuclear option is really a crucial point. In order to play a positive role in improving this confidence, one should be aware that there is a double value of the title of « expert » or « independent »: the intrinsic and objective value, and the value or the credit that the common people give you on that titles. Credibility and confidence are top values that you must earn on field, but that people has to recognize you. On that second side, media play a key role. Not always a plain and fair and objective role interested more in truth than in other.

Anyway, italian ASN if in force at that time could have played an institutional and technical role in informing italian citizens thus correcting errors, misunderstandings or not-scientifically based information. On this topic again an international collaboration would be beneficial.

Now after the referendum: what about the young students and professionals Italy is still preparing? Which could be the drawbacks of such a reversed decision, and will the reconsidering of the nuclear option survive in the future? 

MR – About the future, I have a real concern on competences and know-how permanence in Enrico Fermi’s country. The nuclear industry, workers, R&D and educational sectors will be severely affected by the public poll result. A similar effect occurred after the post-Chernobyl referendum: low governmental and public support and funding on nuclear fission. There was a sensible and big « espoir », at all levels, for the restarting option, now they are experiencing a « cold shower ».

The only chance will be (again, as after Chernobyl) to be linked to international market and projects on the nuclear sector. It will be an absolute must after the referendum. We need, we must plan cooperation programs with key partners, both at institutional and industrial level, for technical, scientific, educational, organizational activities. An interesting opportunity for R&D could be, for example, GenIV reactors and Small-Medium size Modular Reactors.

About the young students and professionals: we will prepare them for international market.

A suitable education of young, high quality professionals, as well as their attraction to the nuclear sector, the so-called « human capital » or « capacity building », is a mandatory step. Otherwise the nuclear sector will not have a future. Not only in Italy.