No abstract

Addressing climate change requires de-carbonizing future energy supplies in an increasingly energy-dependent world. The IEA and the IPCC (2014) mention the following as low-carbon energy supply options: 'renewable energy, nuclear power and fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage'. Positioning nuclear power in the decarbonization transition is a problematic issue and is overridden by ill-conceived axioms. Before probing these axioms, we provide an overview of five major, postwar energy-related legacies and some insight into who is engaged in nuclear activities. We check whether low-carbon nuclear power passes the full sustainability test and whether it is compatible with the unfettered deployment of variable renewable power sourced from the sun and from wind and water currents, which delivers two negative answers. We show that the best approach of the sustainable energy transition was Germany's 2011 decision to phase out nuclear power for a fast development and full deployment of renewable power. This is the best approach for the sustainable energy transition. We offer five practical suggestions to strengthen and accelerate carbon-and nuclear-free transitions. They are related to institutional issues like the role of cost-benefit analysis and the mission of the International Atomic Energy Agency, to the costs of nuclear risks and catastrophes, and to the historical record of nuclear technology and business.

No abstract

Empirical research paints a dynamic picture of the evolution of private provision in urban drinking water. A second wave of privatisation is clustered in a key group of countries, distinguished by the rise of new domestic private and quasi-private providers. This is, however, taking place in the presence of a counter-dynamic of remunicipalisation. In response to the complexity in provision arrangements revealed, three case studies are used to illustrate how different power balance configurations in the state-society-capital complex inform particular institutional arrangements. In Germany, civil society pressure challenged private capital resulting in the reinstatement of municipal control in Berlin, but at high long-term costs. In Russia, disempowered civil society has watched as the ruling regime exploits the support of international public agencies and foreign investors, while carefully safeguarding the interests of domestic private capital. In China, different levels of the state have promoted quasi-state actors into global corporations, managing the entry of international capital in order to bolster domestic support for desired political reforms. Public responsibility, and equally the re-assertion of public control after a period of private provision, may not in itself secure net social benefit where the right of capital to profit is put before broader social considerations.

No abstract