The discursive construction of the economic sustainability of nuclear energy megaprojects: British, French, and Finnish debates on state support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The state has always in multiple ways supported the implementation of nuclear-sector megaprojects. The desirability, legitimacy and sustainability of such support cannot be judged objectively and out of context. Notions used to justify support, such as ‘market distortions’ and ‘market failures’, are ultimately subject to deliberation and negotiation in the historically shaped context of the country in question. Drawing on illustrative case studies of media debates in France and the UK in 1990-2020, and stakeholder interviews conducted in Finland in 2016, this article explores the ways in which country-specific histories and traditions have shaped the discourses on state support for nuclear energy megaprojects since the 1990s, with particular attention to economic subsidies. The malleability of the notions of state support and subsidies has allowed political actors in the three countries to opportunistically adapt their argumentation. Where the nuclear proponents used to rely on economic arguments, today opponents highlight the economic unviability of nuclear, while supporters call for broadening the criteria to the wider benefits of nuclear megaprojects in fostering sustainable development. The analysis shows the solidity and power of the respective country-specific nuclear regimes in reproducing and shaping discourses according to their own needs and agendas. In the UK, successive governments undertook substantial efforts, particularly since 2008, to redefine the long-standing principle that nuclear new-build should not be subsidised. In France, nuclear proponents reproduced an image juxtaposing affordable nuclear with subsidised renewables within a specific French public-sector electricity-sector model of a ‘monopoly that works’. The dominant Finnish discourse portrayed nuclear as an electricity source that needs no subsidies, and supplies cheap and reliable low-carbon baseload electricity necessary for the country’s vital export industry. This article argues that the extensive controversies over nuclear subsidies – such as those in the UK – can attend to the procedural requirements of sustainable development, by improving the social robustness and sustainability of policies, and helping to even out the multiple types of asymmetries of power between nuclear-sector actors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".