I've seen quite a few SMR proposals over the last couple of years and not a single one that dared to address the whole cycle from deployment to eventual decommission as a function of the total revenues - costs to operate. Most of these projects seem to be made to bilk investors or governments rather than to actually produce power. The day Italy produces the first KWh that is net profitable to the operators without counting subsidies I will be highly amazed, and that's assuming they get to operational in the first place.
I agree, I tell everyone who will listen that no country, not Russia, China, Japan, France, USA etc has ever made nuclear power profitable. And you can't blame it on the environmentalists in China and Russia.
That being said, many countries consider it a national security issue not to be held hostage to foreign oil.
> country, not Russia, China, Japan, France, USA
Are you serious when putting France in this list? Nuclear is such a cash cow here that EDF manage to make profits even while being forced by the regulator to sell a big fraction of its nuclear capacity below the operating cost and buying it back to them at market price! (We're talking about a multi-billon subsidies scheme, look for ARENH).
And that is despite (rather legitimate IMHO) regulatory constraints that have no equivalent in any other industry.
France is in that list (hello i'm from france too) because construction is heavily subsidized and decommission is overall not happening, not planned, and more or less not even approaching the planning stage. The few decommissions that are taking place are decades late and billions over budget.
It's not industry secret that if you count the entire life cycle, nuclear is the most expensive (in terms of euros) energy we have. Does that mean it's a bad investment? Not necessarily. If you're an ecologist, it's a bad investment because it takes us in the wrong direction (more energy consumption) instead of going the way of degrowth. Also, the nuclear industry is very much in bed with the military industrial complex, which is something you may be concerned about.
And that economic analysis does not even account for how "stolen" the uranium we use is. If France paid an actual fair price to the Françafrique countries pillaged for their uranium, it would probably be more expensive. TBH, i haven't followed developments in the last years in regards to french neocolonialism collapsing in sub-saharan africa, but here's a small article from 6 years ago: <a href="https://infokiosques.net/IMG/pdf/uranium_de_la_francafrique-fil-2020-12p-2.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://infokiosques.net/IMG/pdf/uranium_de_la_francafrique-...
> If you're an ecologist, it's a bad investment because it takes us in the wrong direction (more energy consumption) instead of going the way of degrowth.
Why would an ecologist have to be against more energy consumption? For climate change, what matters is energy from the sun hitting the earth vs. energy being radiated back into space. More energy consumption also doesn't necessarily cause more pollution of any kind.
You're redefining environmentalism with a very narrow and technical view. Goodhart's law does not only apply to computer science, but to ecology as well, and says that CO2 emission alone is not a good metrics.
I'm not saying energy consumption overall is a perfect metrics, but the degrowth movement is a philosophy / science that's not aligned on a specific metrics: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth
I think to most people, environmentalism is mostly about climate change and pollution. You're free to widen the definition of course, but note that even that Wikipedia article basically calls it a fringe ideology (in different words).
Can you name specific issues caused directly by energy consumption as opposed to specific energy sources or downstream effects like pollution, which is avoidable?
The degrowth movement is very fringe indeed. But its ideas are not, some have even been assimilated by the green-washing apparatus such as "reduce, reuse, recycle". I agree with your definition because it includes pollution, which is deciding factor for reducing production overall.
> Can you name specific issues caused directly by energy consumption
The question is good but not the framing. How is pollution avoidable? Energy consumption is not the problem but it's the means by which the auxiliary problems arise, and therefore a correct proxy to measure them. One of the problems is production of throwaway goods of dubious quality (leading to enormous pollution), a problem which technically could not exist before we had an abundance of quasi-free energy.
It's like in software development when people consider CPU/RAM is unlimited and don't provide any optimization. That may be fine in hypothetical settings, but in the real world resources are finite. (the analogy stops because using too much CPU/RAM does not "pollute" the rest of the machine and create memory corruption or whatever)
> One of the problems is production of throwaway goods of dubious quality (leading to enormous pollution), a problem which technically could not exist before we had an abundance of quasi-free energy.
Yes, but my entire point is not only is this solvable without throwing the energy baby out with the dubious quality goods bathwater, it's easier to solve with more and cheaper energy.
If the consumption of abundant energy has negative externalities, then those need to be appropriately priced. At that point, buying pollution causing junk will become more expensive than buying clean junk, but we'll still be able to afford the clean junk we want.
No. Temperature increases until balance is restored. Temperature is currently increasing, which means the planet is not radiating away as much energy as it is receiving.
What? The energy imbalance is basically negligible on a day to day basis. Vastly less than the heating requirements to raise the temperature. I'll point you to a worthwhile veritasium video on the subject: <a href="https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DxL2HoqLbyA" rel="nofollow">https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DxL2HoqLbyA
I think we're talking at cross purposes. There's a clear equilibrium state which is both higher temperature and notably bad whilst completely balanced from an energy perspective. Climate change is not bad because the temperature is increasing, its bad because it has increased and is going to increase more. The fact we still have baked in warming is additional bad.
Yes, at equilibrium the temperature stays constant. I'm talking about the average temperature of the entire Earth over time. We are currently not at equilibrium because we're pumping unfathomable amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, so the average temperature is skyrocketing. If we were to stop emitting CO2 today then in a few decades or so the planet would reach equilibrium and the temperature would stay constant at that new normal.
This is of course simplified, but roughly correct as I understand it.
The issue is not only climate change. More consumption means more consumer goods, more resource extraction, more transport, more waste
We have huge environmental problems ranging from ecosystem simplification, microplastics, etc. The answer is not to keep consuming as we are. We really have to stop the neoliberal system that's based on ever increasing growth and externalisation of environmental impact.
> We really have to stop the neoliberal system that's based on ever increasing growth and externalisation of environmental impact.
Like, I too would like a pony, but we gotta live in the real world. Ultimately we need more energy of basically every carbon neutral form.
I agree that the ideology of growth at all costs is problematic, but it's how our society is structured right now, so we need to fix our current energy problems rather than bet on transforming society.
To be fair, the declining fertility rate will probably solve a bunch of environmental issues over the next few generations.
Well it's just American society that really has this so deeply ingrained that it's deemed irreversible.
Europe only turned neoliberal a few decades ago and only some countries are deeply into it like the Netherlands. Before the 90s we were much more socialist and can go back that way.
China also isn't neoliberal. They're good at playing the capitalist game but they're not afraid to pull the handbrake where needed and they are going good things for green energy.
> Europe only turned neoliberal a few decades ago and only some countries are deeply into it like the Netherlands. Before the 90s we were much more socialist and can go back that way.
We all have the same financial system. Like, if you have interest bearing loans, then some amount of growth is required to pay back the principal + interest.
I think calling it neo-liberal isn't really correct, it's fundamental to the economic system we call capitalism.
Neoliberalism is strongly tied to capitalism, but it is more than that, it's a strong belief that capitalism is the only possible way and that it works best with no restrictions on it.
What we need to do is restrict capitalism. Some capitalism is ok, I'm not advocating for a pure communist system, but there needs to be a balance between both. Since the fall of the soviet union, the balance has swayed wayy too much in favour of the unlimited capitalism option, whatever you call it.
> What we need to do is restrict capitalism. Some capitalism is ok, I'm not advocating for a pure communist system, but there needs to be a balance between both. Since the fall of the soviet union, the balance has swayed wayy too much in favour of the unlimited capitalism option, whatever you call it.
I don't disagree with this at all, I'm all for red in tooth and claw capitalism, once every person has food, clothing, shelter, healthcare and education.
> And no the system isn't really the same, or at least it wasn't. Interest-free loans were pretty common and when I studied the government even provided them as student loans. Unfortunately they don't anymore.
I think that many people are missing my point here. Fundamentally, "capitalism" is structured (today, at least) around people with money giving it to others and getting the interest payments as the reward.
In a world with zero growth, where does the money for interest come from? (hopefully this is also a world with zero inflation, or we're all in trouble).
Again, philosophically I agree with a lot of this (our society is very rich, and yet millions of people starve and die from avoidable illness), but my core question is how we get there.
Preferably in small, incremental steps as that's the safest way for us in general.
> I agree that the ideology of growth at all costs is problematic, but it's how our society is structured right now
With this mindset, nothing ever changes. No social problem was ever solved without looking at it from a social/political perspective. If you agree that growth ideology is problematic, then that's what you need to dismantle.
> To be fair, the declining fertility rate will probably solve a bunch of environmental issues
I think this is just wrong. The problem is the lifestyle: the throwaway culture and abundant consumption of throwaway goods. We could be just as many billions living OK in our environment, but you could have just 100 million average middle-class westerners continuing to fuck up nature (just slightly slower).
> With this mindset, nothing ever changes. No social problem was ever solved without looking at it from a social/political perspective. If you agree that growth ideology is problematic, then that's what you need to dismantle.
OK great, what's the plan then?
Where do we start?
What small problem can we fix to make this better?
If you don't know the answers to the above, then this discussion is entirely pointless, and I would remind you that although I would love a pony, that doesn't mean that I'll get one.
Any "solution" that relies on changing the entirety of how society is structured isn't going to work, absent an incredibly good plan (against which one can make incremental progress).
To ask probably the most important question, in a world of zero growth, how do we pay back all the consumer debt we owe? Thinking specifically of mortgages here, as they're the largest amount of debt held by the populace.
There is a possible future where none of these things are a problem and yet energy consumption is greater than it is currently. I think it's actually the most likely future.
The ship may have sailed on climate change, but plastic pollution is not solved by consuming less, it's solved by consuming differently.
I get being critical of mindless consumerism, but degrowth doesn't seem to be about "order less junk on amazon/temu", but fundamentally reducing economic activity and energy consumption, which is civilisational suicide.
> I think it's actually the most likely future.
Well that deserves some actual argument. This abundant future has been promised to us for generations and has served as a justification for precisely fucking everything up in the name of the brighter future. Yet now we have, to my knowledge, no indicator of things getting better, but all indicators going way worse than we thought.
> I get being critical of mindless consumerism, but degrowth doesn't seem to be about "order less junk on amazon/temu"
Yes it is. It's about mindful production of useful products and services. Which is very much the same as reducing economic activity and energy consumption.
> Yet now we have, to my knowledge, no indicator of things getting better, but all indicators going way worse than we thought.
Several forms of pollution are now much better than they were decades ago. Chlorofluorocarbons, lead in gasoline, rivers and lakes around the world, catalytic converters, slash-and-burn agriculture etc. etc.
Electricity generation is also headed the right way.
The solution is usually better technology and political action, not abstinence. We still have fridges, just not with CFCs.
I'm not saying we'll fix climate change in time, by the way. That is uncertain. But if we do fix it, it won't be with degrowth.
> Yes it is. It's about mindful production of useful products and services. Which is very much the same as reducing economic activity and energy consumption.
Why do you think that wanting less cheap temu junk means overall economic activity will decrease? Why can't that economic activity be redirected to a sustainable future with abundance instead? I still want to eat food grown elsewhere in the world, just not sold in plastic packaging and transported with fossil fuels.
We are using that energy no matter how produced to terraform the planet into a less hospitable one for nearly everyone. Some get hung up on the resource extraction and associated pollution for renewable energy. But ultimately you can't fix "wanting the wrong thing" with technology. Our way of life and expected conveniences are not sustainable, they can't last 100k years, probably not even 100.
jacquesm · · focus · HN ↗
asmodeuslucifer · · focus · HN ↗
That being said, many countries consider it a national security issue not to be held hostage to foreign oil.
stymaar · · focus · HN ↗
Are you serious when putting France in this list? Nuclear is such a cash cow here that EDF manage to make profits even while being forced by the regulator to sell a big fraction of its nuclear capacity below the operating cost and buying it back to them at market price! (We're talking about a multi-billon subsidies scheme, look for ARENH).
And that is despite (rather legitimate IMHO) regulatory constraints that have no equivalent in any other industry.
selfhoster1312 · · focus · HN ↗
It's not industry secret that if you count the entire life cycle, nuclear is the most expensive (in terms of euros) energy we have. Does that mean it's a bad investment? Not necessarily. If you're an ecologist, it's a bad investment because it takes us in the wrong direction (more energy consumption) instead of going the way of degrowth. Also, the nuclear industry is very much in bed with the military industrial complex, which is something you may be concerned about.
And that economic analysis does not even account for how "stolen" the uranium we use is. If France paid an actual fair price to the Françafrique countries pillaged for their uranium, it would probably be more expensive. TBH, i haven't followed developments in the last years in regards to french neocolonialism collapsing in sub-saharan africa, but here's a small article from 6 years ago: <a href="https://infokiosques.net/IMG/pdf/uranium_de_la_francafrique-fil-2020-12p-2.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://infokiosques.net/IMG/pdf/uranium_de_la_francafrique-...
ponyfleisch · · focus · HN ↗
Why would an ecologist have to be against more energy consumption? For climate change, what matters is energy from the sun hitting the earth vs. energy being radiated back into space. More energy consumption also doesn't necessarily cause more pollution of any kind.
selfhoster1312 · · focus · HN ↗
I'm not saying energy consumption overall is a perfect metrics, but the degrowth movement is a philosophy / science that's not aligned on a specific metrics: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth
ponyfleisch · · focus · HN ↗
Can you name specific issues caused directly by energy consumption as opposed to specific energy sources or downstream effects like pollution, which is avoidable?
selfhoster1312 · · focus · HN ↗
> Can you name specific issues caused directly by energy consumption
The question is good but not the framing. How is pollution avoidable? Energy consumption is not the problem but it's the means by which the auxiliary problems arise, and therefore a correct proxy to measure them. One of the problems is production of throwaway goods of dubious quality (leading to enormous pollution), a problem which technically could not exist before we had an abundance of quasi-free energy.
It's like in software development when people consider CPU/RAM is unlimited and don't provide any optimization. That may be fine in hypothetical settings, but in the real world resources are finite. (the analogy stops because using too much CPU/RAM does not "pollute" the rest of the machine and create memory corruption or whatever)
ponyfleisch · · focus · HN ↗
Yes, but my entire point is not only is this solvable without throwing the energy baby out with the dubious quality goods bathwater, it's easier to solve with more and cheaper energy. If the consumption of abundant energy has negative externalities, then those need to be appropriately priced. At that point, buying pollution causing junk will become more expensive than buying clean junk, but we'll still be able to afford the clean junk we want.
hgomersall · · focus · HN ↗
sfn42 · · focus · HN ↗
hgomersall · · focus · HN ↗
hgomersall · · focus · HN ↗
sfn42 · · focus · HN ↗
This is of course simplified, but roughly correct as I understand it.
wolvoleo · · focus · HN ↗
We have huge environmental problems ranging from ecosystem simplification, microplastics, etc. The answer is not to keep consuming as we are. We really have to stop the neoliberal system that's based on ever increasing growth and externalisation of environmental impact.
disgruntledphd2 · · focus · HN ↗
Like, I too would like a pony, but we gotta live in the real world. Ultimately we need more energy of basically every carbon neutral form.
I agree that the ideology of growth at all costs is problematic, but it's how our society is structured right now, so we need to fix our current energy problems rather than bet on transforming society.
To be fair, the declining fertility rate will probably solve a bunch of environmental issues over the next few generations.
wolvoleo · · focus · HN ↗
Europe only turned neoliberal a few decades ago and only some countries are deeply into it like the Netherlands. Before the 90s we were much more socialist and can go back that way.
China also isn't neoliberal. They're good at playing the capitalist game but they're not afraid to pull the handbrake where needed and they are going good things for green energy.
disgruntledphd2 · · focus · HN ↗
We all have the same financial system. Like, if you have interest bearing loans, then some amount of growth is required to pay back the principal + interest.
I think calling it neo-liberal isn't really correct, it's fundamental to the economic system we call capitalism.
wolvoleo · · focus · HN ↗
What we need to do is restrict capitalism. Some capitalism is ok, I'm not advocating for a pure communist system, but there needs to be a balance between both. Since the fall of the soviet union, the balance has swayed wayy too much in favour of the unlimited capitalism option, whatever you call it.
disgruntledphd2 · · focus · HN ↗
I don't disagree with this at all, I'm all for red in tooth and claw capitalism, once every person has food, clothing, shelter, healthcare and education.
> And no the system isn't really the same, or at least it wasn't. Interest-free loans were pretty common and when I studied the government even provided them as student loans. Unfortunately they don't anymore.
I think that many people are missing my point here. Fundamentally, "capitalism" is structured (today, at least) around people with money giving it to others and getting the interest payments as the reward.
In a world with zero growth, where does the money for interest come from? (hopefully this is also a world with zero inflation, or we're all in trouble).
Again, philosophically I agree with a lot of this (our society is very rich, and yet millions of people starve and die from avoidable illness), but my core question is how we get there.
Preferably in small, incremental steps as that's the safest way for us in general.
selfhoster1312 · · focus · HN ↗
With this mindset, nothing ever changes. No social problem was ever solved without looking at it from a social/political perspective. If you agree that growth ideology is problematic, then that's what you need to dismantle.
> To be fair, the declining fertility rate will probably solve a bunch of environmental issues
I think this is just wrong. The problem is the lifestyle: the throwaway culture and abundant consumption of throwaway goods. We could be just as many billions living OK in our environment, but you could have just 100 million average middle-class westerners continuing to fuck up nature (just slightly slower).
disgruntledphd2 · · focus · HN ↗
OK great, what's the plan then?
Where do we start?
What small problem can we fix to make this better?
If you don't know the answers to the above, then this discussion is entirely pointless, and I would remind you that although I would love a pony, that doesn't mean that I'll get one.
Any "solution" that relies on changing the entirety of how society is structured isn't going to work, absent an incredibly good plan (against which one can make incremental progress).
To ask probably the most important question, in a world of zero growth, how do we pay back all the consumer debt we owe? Thinking specifically of mortgages here, as they're the largest amount of debt held by the populace.
ponyfleisch · · focus · HN ↗
I get being critical of mindless consumerism, but degrowth doesn't seem to be about "order less junk on amazon/temu", but fundamentally reducing economic activity and energy consumption, which is civilisational suicide.
selfhoster1312 · · focus · HN ↗
Well that deserves some actual argument. This abundant future has been promised to us for generations and has served as a justification for precisely fucking everything up in the name of the brighter future. Yet now we have, to my knowledge, no indicator of things getting better, but all indicators going way worse than we thought.
> I get being critical of mindless consumerism, but degrowth doesn't seem to be about "order less junk on amazon/temu"
Yes it is. It's about mindful production of useful products and services. Which is very much the same as reducing economic activity and energy consumption.
ponyfleisch · · focus · HN ↗
Several forms of pollution are now much better than they were decades ago. Chlorofluorocarbons, lead in gasoline, rivers and lakes around the world, catalytic converters, slash-and-burn agriculture etc. etc.
Electricity generation is also headed the right way.
The solution is usually better technology and political action, not abstinence. We still have fridges, just not with CFCs.
I'm not saying we'll fix climate change in time, by the way. That is uncertain. But if we do fix it, it won't be with degrowth.
> Yes it is. It's about mindful production of useful products and services. Which is very much the same as reducing economic activity and energy consumption.
Why do you think that wanting less cheap temu junk means overall economic activity will decrease? Why can't that economic activity be redirected to a sustainable future with abundance instead? I still want to eat food grown elsewhere in the world, just not sold in plastic packaging and transported with fossil fuels.
Voultapher · · focus · HN ↗