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.
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.
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.
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.