Can nuclear energy solve Europe’s energy crisis? Here’s why it won’t be easy
High up-front costs, problems with radiation and waste disposal, and memories of horrific accidents have contributed to Europe’s reluctance to embrace nuclear energy in recent years.
But the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz in the middle of the US-Iran war has exposed the continent’s vulnerability to disrupted energy imports, and nuclear could offer Europe a lifeline.
IEA chief Fatih Birol previously told CNBC that nuclear energy will “get a boost” from the supply crisis and called on governments to increase their resilience with alternative energy sources.
Nuclear energy produces significantly fewer emissions than fossil fuels, plants take up minimal land space, and reactors are extremely reliable in all weather conditions.
“I think nuclear has to play a big role in solving this problem for Europe,” Chris Seiple, vice president of energy and renewables at Wood Mackenzie, told CNBC.
The United States, China and France are in a better position to deal with the supply shock caused by the war, in part because they are the world’s three largest producers of nuclear energy.
“If you don’t have a natural energy source, your energy costs are going to be higher to import it from somewhere, or you’re going to have to generate some degree of nuclear energy,” Michael Browne, global investment strategist at Franklin Templeton, told CNBC.
“As France has shown, it is expensive but very efficient. France’s energy prices are significantly lower than German prices.”
EDF nuclear power plants in France.
Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images
France is Europe’s poster child in space, with more than 60% of its energy needs met by nuclear energy.
More countries are also taking action. The Iran war serves as a “major turning point” in South Korea’s shift away from oil to alternatives, according to climate minister Kim Sung-hwan.
In an interview with CNBC’s Lisa Kim, Sung-hwan said nuclear and renewable energy will form the “two pillars” of future energy supply.
This raises the question of whether other European countries such as the UK and Germany, which have mostly decommissioned reactors for decades, might consider improving their nuclear capacity to provide greater insulation against future energy supply shocks.
A long term view
Analysts see a strong argument for increasing the importance of nuclear energy as a key component of the energy strategy of European nations.
By 2025, nuclear will account for just 11.8% of Europe’s total energy mix, according to data from Eurostat, while oil and gas still account for more than a third.
“The easiest way to achieve energy security is to diversify your sources,” Adnan Shihab-Eldin, senior visiting research fellow at the Oxford Institute for Energy Research, told CNBC.
“The mistake that Germany and many other European countries made was to put ideology first, believing that nuclear energy was bad.”
However, it can take decades to get the facilities up and running. Hinkley Point C in the United Kingdom, planned to be the first nuclear reactor in more than 30 years, began operating in 2016 and is not expected to be completed until the end of the decade.
It will provide electricity to 6 million people and meet 7% of the country’s electricity.
Flamanville 3, which opened in France in 2024, took 17 years to come online.
“When a nuclear power plant commissioned today actually becomes operational, the energy landscape could look very different,” Chris Aylett, a research fellow at the Chatham House Center for Environment and Society, told CNBC. “Renewable projects can also become operational much more quickly.”
The key to success for European nuclear projects is finding a cheaper method of construction, which could mean relying on cheaper Chinese technology, according to Wood Mackenzie’s Seiple.
“Except for the US and Europe, the rest of the world has found a way to build cost-competitive nuclear facilities,” he added.
“It’s more a matter of regulation and building the workforce to support it.”
However, cooperation seems unlikely.
“In principle, it might be cheaper and quicker to work with Chinese firms to expand nuclear power in Europe, but this does not seem like a political start, given concerns about security and the loss of strategic industries,” Chatham House’s Aylett added.
public perceptions
The two most damaging nuclear disasters in history – Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011 – each tarnished the technology in the public eye and pushed politicians toward decommissioning projects.
However, according to Aylett, the second energy crisis in Europe in four years may be changing public attitudes.
“Nuclear energy is seen as a ‘domestic’ energy source because its supply chain is not as susceptible to geopolitical turmoil and price shocks as oil and gas,” he said.
“The political environment is also clearly more positive, with governments across Europe reconsidering previous moratoriums and pledging to promote nuclear energy.”
But Shihab-Eldin said the job of preparing future generations to deal with the nuances of the nuclear debate “is not for the faint of heart.”
“You can’t just go in and out; that requires bringing back education, because the public will support the politicians with education, and the politicians will respond to the public.”
