Nuclear energy proved in the 1950s-1980s to work well in Western countries with support from the state, which is the only one with the resources to provide guarantees and security to investors in face of the enormous costs, and especially regulatory compliance, which has increased tremendously in the last decades.
But obviously, proper operation, no matter the model, is a must. Just saying “it’s better to be government-run” or “it’s better to be private-run” is not enough. For example, competition between different projects (mostly Western and East Asian democratic ones, since Russia isn’t an option right now, China’s NPPs aren’t really for export, and there aren’t other players) and consistent build-out of new projects, after decades of lost momentum to solar and wind, is how it advanced rapidly in the past and will now. It also addresses the “nuclear needs to compete with the prices of renewables from the future” (whose energy efficiency continues to be astronomically smaller) claims. They also fail also to account for the much longer costs of replacement of solar and wind facilities, their declining efficiency even within that period, and the factor of anti-nuclear energy backlash and shift to market dynamics, which severely throttled the continued momentum of nuclear compared to other renewables for decades. A reminder that renewables’ growth and reduction in prices were also powered by enormous and consistent subsidies and industrial policy in China for decades, not purely market-based growth.
Too much of the anti-nuclear discourse focuses on the costs of the nuclear instead of the immense benefits of stable, clean, energy-rich and cheap energy provided by it for decades once in operation in the past, and new ones. Solar and wind will obviously continue to be important, which is why they won’t go away and keep expanding, but it’s telling that no state that has phased out nuclear has come out better in the long run as a result either, and has been forced to restart it for energy security or keep suffering from not having it (like Germany and Taiwan).
2 Comments
The European Union is investigating France’s plan to subsidize Électricité de France (EDF) for constructing six new nuclear reactors at Penly, Gravelines, and Bugey, with costs estimated at €72.8 billion ($83.45 billion). The European Commission says the aid appears necessary and supports economic activity but wants to assess whether it is proportional and how it affects market competition. Officials expressed concern that the subsidies could consolidate or indirectly strengthen EDF’s market power. EDF has not yet commented on the probe. The plan reflects France’s strategy to expand nuclear energy capacity. The EU investigation underscores scrutiny over state support for dominant energy firms. This comes amid broader European debates over energy security and climate policy. The outcome could affect both EDF’s operations and EU rules on competition.
Nuclear energy proved in the 1950s-1980s to work well in Western countries with support from the state, which is the only one with the resources to provide guarantees and security to investors in face of the enormous costs, and especially regulatory compliance, which has increased tremendously in the last decades.
But obviously, proper operation, no matter the model, is a must. Just saying “it’s better to be government-run” or “it’s better to be private-run” is not enough. For example, competition between different projects (mostly Western and East Asian democratic ones, since Russia isn’t an option right now, China’s NPPs aren’t really for export, and there aren’t other players) and consistent build-out of new projects, after decades of lost momentum to solar and wind, is how it advanced rapidly in the past and will now. It also addresses the “nuclear needs to compete with the prices of renewables from the future” (whose energy efficiency continues to be astronomically smaller) claims. They also fail also to account for the much longer costs of replacement of solar and wind facilities, their declining efficiency even within that period, and the factor of anti-nuclear energy backlash and shift to market dynamics, which severely throttled the continued momentum of nuclear compared to other renewables for decades. A reminder that renewables’ growth and reduction in prices were also powered by enormous and consistent subsidies and industrial policy in China for decades, not purely market-based growth.
Too much of the anti-nuclear discourse focuses on the costs of the nuclear instead of the immense benefits of stable, clean, energy-rich and cheap energy provided by it for decades once in operation in the past, and new ones. Solar and wind will obviously continue to be important, which is why they won’t go away and keep expanding, but it’s telling that no state that has phased out nuclear has come out better in the long run as a result either, and has been forced to restart it for energy security or keep suffering from not having it (like Germany and Taiwan).