In a scenario where spheres of influence are being redefined through economic wars and full-blown wars, with bombings, missile launches, and AI-guided drones, control of fossil fuel and mineral energy resources remains the primary cause of international conflicts. Once again, with oil prices fluctuating almost daily, in a situation where the entire Middle East is destabilized and crude oil supplies are severely impacted by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the nuclear lobby is making itself heard again. The Meloni government, desperately seeking funds to mitigate the increase in gasoline and diesel prices, and faced with a public eagerly awaiting the abolition of excise duties, is attempting to spread a smokescreen to conceal its own inefficiency on the energy issue by relaunching the enabling law on "sustainable nuclear power."
On February 28, 2025, at the head of the Ministry of the Environment and Energy Security (MASE), the Council of Ministers approved a bill to delegate the government's responsibility for the new "sustainable nuclear power." A few days ago, the enabling law concluded its examination by the Environment and Productive Activities Committees; the process then includes approval by the Chamber of Deputies and then the Senate. The government's goal is to complete the bill by the summer recess, with implementing provisions by the end of the year. Once these steps are completed, the legal framework would be created "so that, towards the end of this decade, we can restart the initiative for nuclear energy production," as the minister stated. As a corollary to this legislative initiative, the MASE website features the title "SUSTAINABLE NUCLEAR," two terms that recur as a refrain in the header of each subsequent page. However, simply repeating a slogan isn't enough to make it credible. According to this document, electricity demand is forecast to double compared to the current level over the next twenty years. Nuclear is presented as a green, safe, programmable, and continuous source. These last two adjectives indirectly, and not coincidentally, underscore the limitations of renewable sources. Referring to the so-called "balanced mix"—alternative sources, nuclear, and gas—the document states the possibility of achieving decarbonization targets by 2050. By that time, nuclear would be able to cover 11 to 22% of electricity demand. Pay attention to the percentages... they throw them around as if having a share of 11% rather than 22% were the same thing, as if such a gap could be closed with the equivalent of a snap of the fingers. As you read further, you "discover" that nuclear can ensure sufficient energy at affordable prices for businesses and families, ensuring sustainable development from an economic, social, and environmental perspective. A true fairy tale with a happy ending, without a single piece of data to support it. I'll provide some data later. Meanwhile, let's look at the main areas of delegation envisaged in the bill currently completing its process.
First, it refers to "Information and training tools relating to the role of nuclear technologies in decarbonization." This means developing a propaganda campaign to convince people that nuclear power can also solve the problem of greenhouse gas emissions, thus combating the climate crisis.
We then move on to the "Regulation of Research, Development, and Use of Energy from Fission and Fusion," that is, the definition of an objective that includes the control and direction of research. While research can play a fundamental role in developing knowledge and finding technological solutions beneficial to humanity, it must be remembered that those who fund research direct it toward their own interests. In this specific case, we must not forget that, first and foremost, nuclear technology was studied and used to build the most destructive weapons of the modern era. It still underpins the power relations between world powers and their satellite states. Furthermore, referring to nuclear fusion as if it were a soon-to-be-available technology is a complete lie.
Another mandate concerns the "Regulations for the testing, siting, construction, and operation of new modules for the production of energy from sustainable nuclear sources." Again, there is an attempt to make people believe that the new Small Modular Reactor (SMR) modules are ready for use. These are a type of reactor characterized by small dimensions and power outputs, up to 300 MW per unit, while current reactors have a power output between 600 and 1,000 MW. The trials, still ongoing, do not guarantee any definite advantage over larger reactors, so we are faced with a narrative rather than a concrete energy option with innovative features compared to previous technologies. The overuse of terms like "new and sustainable" when discussing nuclear fission is part of the strategy of the aforementioned "information and educational tools," i.e., those used to convince/force the population to accept the nuclear option, despite the results of two referendums, in 1987 and 2011. After all, we know it well: this is how delegated democracy works: it easily bends to pressure from power groups and is always ready to reshuffle the cards when it comes to favoring the investments of friends of friends, rather than protecting the interests of the majority.
One of the mandates refers to the "fabrication and reprocessing of nuclear fuel, within a circular economy vision." It's clear that citing nuclear fuel reprocessing as an example of a circular economy is an unacceptable stretch; similarly, if we discuss nuclear fuel fabrication, we're effectively revealing the obvious link between the civilian and military use of uranium and its radioactive derivatives. If this were not the case, we should ask ourselves why, according to the "Israeli-Trump" governments, Iran shouldn't have the right to develop its own "civilian" nuclear program.
Another mandate refers to the "Decommissioning of old power plants, temporary storage, and final disposal of waste and spent fuel." But what are we talking about? Perhaps it's the fact that, with the outcome of the November 1987 referendum, decommissioning activities at Italian plants began? Unfortunately, after 39 years, the difficulties in identifying and setting up the now-famous final waste repository are evident, not to mention the enormous expense incurred in the dismantling and safety measures at Italian power plants, which, still unfinished, concern only four plants.
There is also a delegation regarding "Benefits for the affected territories," which means a declared intention to offer compensation in the form of financial subsidies, provision of services, tax cuts, and/or other benefits to those territories that are willing to accept nuclear power and its associated benefits.
The goal of reintroducing nuclear power is therefore accompanied by a powerful campaign of persuasion, which is not supported by objective data but only by an artificial narrative.
Evaluating some objective data is necessary to understand the issue; I am referring now to those provided by the " World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2025 " (WNISR), a publication that annually assesses the status and trends of the international nuclear industry.
As of January 1, 2026, 404 nuclear reactors were in operation worldwide, five fewer than the previous year. Construction of new nuclear power plants is underway in 11 countries, five fewer than just two years earlier. Of the 66 units under construction, 63 (95%) are located in nuclear-armed states or are being built by companies controlled by nuclear-armed states. Only the three construction sites in South Korea do not fall into this category. And only the three nuclear-armed states—China, France, and Russia—are building commercial reactors abroad.
According to the 2025 WNISR report, the costs per kWh of various energy sources, expressed in euro cents, are as shown in the table. For ease of reading, I have only reported the maximum figures for each type and not the range with the maximum and minimum values for 2024.
The values are expressed in € cents/kWh.
Photovoltaic
small surfaces
Photovoltaic
large surfaces
Agri photovoltaic Wind power
onshore
Wind power
offshore
Biomass Biogas Lignite Coal Nuclear €cent/kWh
14.4 12 11.9 9.2 10.3 23.5 32.5 25.7 29.3 49
As you can see, the cost per kWh of nuclear power is higher than all other sources, about four times more than photovoltaic and wind power.
At this point, it's appropriate to ask ourselves a question: "Does the solution to the energy issue lie in the progressive abandonment of fossil fuels, in the halting and dismantling of nuclear power in favor of renewable energy sources? I would say this would be a desirable step, if we envision a management of energy needs that minimizes environmental impact, that provides decentralized and widespread energy availability throughout the country, and that is based on the self-management of sources free from hierarchical structures. But it must be equally clear that this hypothesis would not be able to withstand the energy-intensive impact of a society still governed by the capitalist system.
Let me try to develop a parallel argument to better explain. When, for example, discussing climate change, we must avoid viewing it as a natural disaster or an inescapable fate, but rather recognize it as a direct consequence of a political and economic system deliberately geared toward infinite growth, profit, and the preservation of power. For decades, governments, states, and international institutions have served the interests of capital, championing unlimited growth on a planet with finite resources.
If we fail to question the foundations of capitalist society, we risk becoming cogs in a machine that makes us complicit in our own destruction, where every need, every purchase, every keystroke fuels a model that devours resources and lives. Contemporary society, dominated by induced needs, permanently ravaged by wars, and increasingly conditioned by new energy-intensive technologies such as Bitcoin and artificial intelligence (AI), is a veritable "black hole" in terms of energy consumption. These seemingly distinct phenomena share a common thread: the nexus between state and capital, which incentivizes energy-intensive models of consumerism, placing profit and power above the real needs of people and the environment. The same states that sign international agreements with one hand continue to financially support fossil fuels with the other.
The propensity to consume thus creates "unrealistic expectations," pushing people to buy what they don't really need. At the same time, the very goods chosen as objects of desire are subject to planned obsolescence, a mechanism by which products are deliberately designed to break down or become rapidly obsolete. It's clear that the perpetuation of this production model, supported by the manipulation of desire, is a key strategy of capitalism, which fuels itself by generating "insatiable" demand on the one hand, while maintaining and amplifying social inequalities on the other.
The enormous production system is so riddled with contradictions that, in some cases, it suffers from overproduction crises and, absurdly, even destroys food supplies to keep prices low. An apparatus that moves goods and people, as if they were commodities, from one continent to another has a devastating impact on energy as well.
For this reason, among the alternatives to fossil fuels and nuclear energy, "non-wasted" energy should be considered, a form of energy the capitalist system cannot conceive of because it does not generate profit. This is further confirmation of the irreformability of a system capable of transforming the "solutions" to problems it itself generates into further opportunities for profit. "Sustainability" as promoted by institutions is an optical illusion, an ideological device to allow capitalism to survive the catastrophe it itself has created by opening new, "green" or so-called markets. We must prepare to counter yet another attempt to drag us back into history. It is absolutely essential to understand that the ecological crisis is a class war waged from above against the subaltern classes. It is not "we're all in this together"; we must abandon the "petitory posture." We must stop begging the "sovereign" to save us and start building a real alternative toward radical change.
MarTa
https://umanitanova.org/linsostenibile-trappola-del-nucleare/
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten