Victoria Pazos / May 2025
Image: Shutterstock
The recent blackout in Spain and Portugal has reignited the debate around the closure of nuclear power plants across the European Union. Political forces such as the European Greens, alongside environmental organisations like the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and Friends of the Earth Europe, have urged the EU to phase out nuclear energy entirely, advocating instead for a complete transition to renewables. However, the 28 April incident, affecting two countries where 90% and 75% of electricity respectively comes from renewable sources, has raised serious concerns about the reliability of such a transition. In short, if Europe is going to quit fossil fuels, it needs nuclear power. There is no alternative.
The war in Ukraine marked a turning point in Europe’s energy strategy. As well as their environmental impacts, fossil fuels have the disadvantage of causing countries to rely on energy imports in a world fraught with geopolitical tension. It’s no longer viable. The EU’s past dependence on Russian gas exposed the fragility of its energy security, prompting a search for more stable, sovereign alternatives.
In this context, nuclear power emerges as a uniquely suitable solution. It produces electricity without emitting carbon dioxide, contributing significantly to climate goals. It is arguably the cleanest and safest form of energy ever discovered. Moreover, nuclear plants generate a stable and continuous supply of electricity, unlike renewables like solar and wind, which depend heavily on weather conditions and require complex balancing systems to ensure consistency.
European scepticism towards nuclear energy has deep roots. It intensified after major nuclear accidents, first in Chernobyl in 1986 and later in Fukushima in 2011. These disasters sparked widespread public fear and political resistance, pushing countries like Germany, Italy, and Belgium to announce plans to phase out nuclear power. The concerns ranged from safety risks and radioactive waste to construction costs. As a result, public trust in nuclear energy weakened across much of Europe.
Today, the process of phasing out nuclear energy remains uneven. Germany completed its shutdown in 2023. Italy has had no active plants since 1990. Belgium has closed several and maintains a gradual phase-out. Switzerland has opted not to build new ones. Austria and Luxembourg oppose nuclear energy entirely. Portugal has never operated a nuclear plant. Spain still has seven reactors in operation, set to close between 2027 and 2035 under current plans.
Wopke Hoekstra, the EU Climate Commissioner, should leverage his position to champion nuclear energy as a pivotal component of Europe's decarbonisation strategy. He ought to advocate for increased investment in nuclear power, which offers a reliable and low-emission energy source. His political influence could be instrumental in encouraging European governments to prioritise nuclear energy, ensuring it plays a central role in achieving the EU's climate goals. Such a focus would not only bolster energy security but also demonstrate the EU's commitment to a balanced and pragmatic approach to climate policy.
The cost of abandoning nuclear power is becoming too high to ignore. While building a nuclear plant is expensive and time-consuming, the long-term benefits are clear: zero carbon emissions, high energy output, and reliable supply. In an age of climate urgency and geopolitical volatility, Europe cannot afford to turn its back on one of the few sources of clean energy which is both powerful and dependable. The EU must re-evaluate its approach, not to abandon renewables, but to recognise the road to a secure and sustainable energy future must include nuclear power.
