A-Infos (en) Italy, FAI, Umanita Nova #18-26 - The unsustainable nuclear trap (ca, de, it, pt, tr) [machine translation]

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/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en