The new geopolitical crisis and rising energy prices have reopened a debate in Europe that many thought was settled: the role of nuclear power in the energy mix. In this context, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, has publicly admitted that Abandoning nuclear energy was a strategic mistake for the European Union, a message that marks a very notable shift from the line that prevailed after the Fukushima accident.
As gas and oil prices soar again due to the war in the Middle East and tensions in the Persian Gulf, Brussels is trying to safeguard the security of supply and the competitiveness of its industry. For the Commission, the combination of nuclear and renewable energy It is now emerging as a key way to reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels and stabilize electricity costs.
"It was a strategic mistake": Von der Leyen's about-face on nuclear power
In Nuclear Energy Summit held in ParisAt the conference organized by France and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Von der Leyen made it clear that the EU was wrong to drastically reduce the role of nuclear power in its electricity system. She recalled, In 1990, nearly a third of Europe's electricity came from nuclear power, and today it barely reaches 15%..
The Commission president stressed that this decline was not the result of chance, but of a deliberate political decision. In her view, turning their backs on a “reliable, affordable and low-emission” source It was a miscalculation in a continent that barely produces oil or gas and is extremely vulnerable to the fluctuations of global energy markets.
His words also imply a relevant personal changeVon der Leyen was part of Angela Merkel's governments that spearheaded the phased closure of German reactors after Fukushima. Now, from Brussels, she admits that that path has left Europe more vulnerable and with a more expensive energy mix, more dependent on foreign sources.
The community leader directly linked this shift to the new international context: Russia's war against Ukraine, the conflict between the US, Israel and Iran, and the tension in the Strait of Hormuz have starkly demonstrated To what extent can dependence on gas and oil be used as a weapon of pressure? economic and political.
A European plan for mini nuclear reactors and more investment
This acknowledgment of the “strategic error” is not merely symbolic. The European Commission has presented a new strategy to boost small modular reactors (SMRs), a smaller and more flexible nuclear technology that aims to complement both large power plants and renewables.
Brussels suggests that The first SMRs will be operational in the early 2030s.with the goal of deploying between 17 and 53 gigawatts of installed capacity by 2050. Considering that the current nuclear fleet is around 100 GW in the EU, in the most ambitious scenario this technology could increase European nuclear capacity by up to 50%.
The Commission wants these mini-reactors to do more than just generate electricity for the grid, but also They also support energy-intensive industrial processes and contribute to decarbonizing sectors that are difficult to electrify. Potential uses include supplying large manufacturing complexes, producing low-carbon hydrogen, and providing process heat for certain industries.
To support this momentum, the European Commission has announced a €200 million guarantee intended to mobilize private investment In innovative nuclear technologies, funding will come from the European Emissions Trading System (ETS). The aim is to reduce the perceived risk for investors in a sector that requires very high outlays and long timeframes.
Brussels insists that what is truly relevant is not just the figure, relatively modest compared to the total needs, but the change of political and regulatory approach: the role of SMRs within a technological neutrality strategy is explicitly recognized, there is talk of "clean" energy, and nuclear power is no longer considered a taboo but rather a possible pillar of the energy transition.
Rules, permits and cooperation: the other half of the European nuclear plan
Beyond financial support, the Commission wants to accelerate nuclear projects by simplifying their regulatory environment. A roadmap was outlined at the Paris summit that includes regulatory testing frameworks for innovative technologies, the harmonization of safety standards between countries and the streamlining of authorization procedures.
The IAEA Director General himself, Rafael Grossi, emphasized that It makes no sense for a power plant to take four or five years to obtain permits. If Europe intends to regain its leadership in this industry, it is possible, in his opinion, to maintain a very high level of security while simultaneously reducing bureaucracy and providing predictability for businesses and investors.
Von der Leyen even speaks of the start of a real “nuclear technology race”The EU aims to keep pace with advanced projects in the United States, Canada, and South Korea. Brussels is confident that European companies can particularly excel in these areas. advanced modular reactors (AMR), a next generation of designs that several community consortia are already working on.
The Commission's plan also points to the need for Strengthen electrical grids, storage capacity, and system flexibilitySince the integration of new nuclear baseload capacity must be coordinated with the expansion of wind, solar, and other renewables, the goal is to build a system where variable and firm energy sources support each other and do not overlap inefficiently.
In parallel, Brussels has recommended to the member states review your energy taxation and network access tariffs to contain electricity costs for households and industry, always with the caution of not compromising the sustainability of public accounts, as warned by the Commissioner for Economic Affairs, Valdis Dombrovskis.
Nuclear and renewables: towards a more balanced mix
Far from presenting nuclear power as an exclusive alternative to green energy, Von der Leyen and other European officials emphasize that The most efficient system combines both technologiesIn her speech, the Commission president highlighted that renewables generate the cheapest electrons, but their production is intermittent and depends on wind and sun.
Nuclear power, on the other hand, provides stable production throughout the year, 24 hours a dayThis helps meet demand when wind and solar power outputs fall or when the best renewable energy locations are far from major industrial centers. The underlying idea is that a mix combining both sources, supported by storage and reinforced grids, offers greater security and more predictable prices.
This discourse aligns with the vision defended by countries such as Francewhose president, Emmanuel Macron, used the summit to champion civilian nuclear energy as a factor of independence and sovereignty in the face of the instability of hydrocarbons. In his view, uranium—despite its own geopolitical dependence—allows for a reduction in the blackmailing power associated with gas and oil.
Macron believes that nuclear power is “safe” with the advances introduced since Fukushima and sees it as an essential complement to renewable growthbecause the latter do not offer the same capacity for control over production. France, in fact, is promoting both the extension of the life of its reactors and the construction of new units, including SMRs.
Grossi himself joined this line of argument by defining nuclear power as a “source of sovereignty and autonomy” and to affirm that a stage has been overcome in which its financing was treated as little less than "criminal." The shared message is that, without denying its technological and environmental challenges, nuclear power is once again seen as a legitimate component of the European climate and energy security strategy.
Division in the EU: France leads the way, Spain resists, and Germany closes the door
Brussels' shift in discourse does not erase the deep-seated problems differences between member states Regarding the future of nuclear energy, energy policy remains a national competence, as the Vice-President of the Commission and Commissioner for Competition and Energy Transition reminded us. Teresa RiberaEach country decides its own mix and Brussels cannot impose the use of this technology.
France has positioned itself at the forefront of the pro-nuclear bloc, advocating for the recognition of nuclear energy as a clean technology and prioritizing its expansion for both domestic consumption and electricity exports. At the opposite extreme are countries such as Germany, , which in 2023 disconnected its last reactors after a long phase-out process.
Von der Leyen's words have sparked an intense debate in Berlin. Chancellor and Christian Democratic leader Friedrich Merz has said he shares the opinion that Ending nuclear power was a mistakeHowever, he believes the decision is "irreversible" and that Germany should now focus on expanding networks and cross-border cooperation to lower electricity costs.
Environment Minister Carsten Schneider, a Social Democrat, has categorically rejected the theory of a strategic error. In his view, Maintaining nuclear power would be a “dead end” Schneider argues that the country would continue to demand enormous public subsidies for a high-risk technology when safer and cheaper alternatives already exist. He believes that abandoning this energy source has made the country "safer" and that this consensus should not be reopened.
Other countries, such as Belgium and Greece, are moving in intermediate or shifting positions: Brussels has extended the lifespan of some reactors to strengthen its security of supply, while Athens has announced that it will study incorporate mini-reactors into your energy mix as a complement to renewables and imported gas.
Spain: nuclear phase-out schedule versus the European shift
In the case of SpainThe Commission's new pro-nuclear approach clashes with a national strategy that, for the moment, remains unchanged. The government of Pedro Sánchez maintains a staggered closure schedule of the current power plants, which foresees the complete shutdown of the nuclear fleet between 2027 and 2035, with the Trillo plant as the last facility to be closed.
In recent months, Congress has debated a non-binding motion from the PP —supported by Vox— that urged delay that scheduleMeanwhile, the companies that own the Almaraz nuclear power plant (Iberdrola, Endesa and Naturgy) have requested an extension of its useful life until 2030. These pressures, however, have not yet achieved a clear change in official policy.
The Minister for Ecological Transition, Sara Aagesen, insists that the The government's "winning bet" lies in renewable energyIn his opinion, Spain has exceptional solar and wind resources and a stable regulatory framework since 2018 that has attracted strong investment in green technologies, while there are no signs of business interest in undertaking new large nuclear investments.
Regarding Almaraz's request for an extension, the Government has referred the decision to the Nuclear Safety Council report, planned for this year. Based on that technical evaluation, the Executive will make its final decision, which, according to Aagesen, will be consistent with the line established in recent years in favor of a gradual closure.
On the political front, the Spanish discourse emphasizes that the Dependence on fossil fuels is a critical vulnerability The solution lies in accelerating the renewable energy transition, strengthening interconnections and energy storage, and continuing to reduce the energy intensity of the economy. The government points out that, unlike other European partners, Spain did not consider extending the lifespan of its nuclear power plants after the outbreak of war in Ukraine.
Safety, waste and social opposition: the shadows of the nuclear bet
The resurgence of the nuclear debate does not eliminate the reasons that led a large part of European public opinion to reject this technology. The criticisms focus primarily on the management of very long-lived radioactive waste, the risks of serious accidents —however infrequent they may be— and the high cost of building and financing new plants.
Environmental organizations such as Greenpeace They used the Paris summit to stage their protest. Several activists interrupted the opening ceremony, unfurling banners with slogans such as "Nuclear energy fuels Russia's war" and "Nuclear = energy insecurity," and questioning why Europe continues to buy uranium from Russia while trying to sanction Moscow for its invasion of Ukraine.
This response also comes at a time when Nuclear safety is once again under scrutinySince Fukushima, regulators have tightened requirements, simultaneously increasing the operating and upgrade costs of power plants. The Commission and the IAEA maintain that future designs—especially SMRs—incorporate passive systems and enhanced standards that should reduce the risk to nearby populations.
On the economic front, the debate remains open as to whether nuclear power can compete without public subsidies against increasingly cheaper renewables. Critics like German Finance Minister Schneider emphasize that After more than seven decades, the nuclear industry continues to need state aid. and financial guarantees, while other alternatives have managed to drastically reduce their costs.
Even so, governments like the French argue that without a certain degree of public intervention and regulatory stability, it would not be possible to deploy electricity grids, storage, or renewable energy projects on a large scale, therefore They consider it legitimate to offer clear signals of support for nuclear power. if it is part of the common climate strategy.
In this clash of arguments, Von der Leyen and her team try to draw a middle ground: to acknowledge that abandoning nuclear power so quickly was a mistaketo promote new technologies that can be safer and more competitive and, at the same time, respect that each Member State maintains its own decision on whether to extend, reduce or eliminate its nuclear fleet.
With geopolitical tensions putting pressure on energy markets, EU institutions are now trying to rebalance security of supply, affordable prices, emissions reductions, and public acceptance. Brussels' mea culpa regarding the phase-out of nuclear power, the focus on small reactors, and the divergences between countries like France, Germany, and Spain illustrate the extent of this challenge. Europe is rewriting its energy strategy in real time, between the urgency of the crisis and the need to chart a more stable course for the coming decades.
