Europe’s ‘nuclear renaissance’ will be Putin’s renaissance
A study on the climatic and environmental aspects of nuclear energy development has been published in Germany. The work was carried out by the Öko-Institut on behalf of the Federal Environment Agency
The topic of nuclear energy in Europe has gained new momentum in recent years — due to the European Commission’s desire to end dependence on Russian hydrocarbons, as well as the transition to carbon-free energy. It is not only that Europeans would like clean air, but also that, to prevent the most catastrophic consequences of climate change, greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced to zero by around the middle of the century.
Germany remains the EU’s leading economy, setting the direction for the entire bloc, which is why developments in the German energy sector spark particularly heated debate.
Germany’s last nuclear power stations were taken off the grid in the spring of 2023, having once provided around a third of the country’s electricity. Today, nuclear power has been replaced by renewable energy sources, which meet around half of the demand.
For supporters of a ‘nuclear renaissance’, including high-ranking politicians, the German experience is inconvenient and irritating. How can taxpayers be persuaded that it is necessary to spend heavily on new nuclear power stations when Europe’s leading economy has shut down its own?
Not long ago, the President of the European Commission, the German Ursula von der Leyen, criticised Germany for abandoning nuclear power, and within the country there are right-wing politicians who would like to bring nuclear power stations back to life, but there are few of them.
The previous German government, under which the phased closure of nuclear power stations was completed, commented on the ‘nuclear’ issue on numerous occasions. The Economy Minister explained that this is the most expensive form of energy, and Germany has no intention of squandering money. The Environment Minister explained that the problem of nuclear waste remains unresolved and will continue to be a burden for future generations. However, these arguments clearly have little influence on supporters of a ‘nuclear renaissance’.
A recent study commissioned by the government claims that, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear power plants are comparable to renewable sources, primarily solar and wind (onshore and offshore) energy, when generating electricity. One might think, on this basis, that nuclear power would play a major role in the fight against climate change. However, the Öko-Institut study describes a scenario in which nuclear power plays a decisive role on a global scale as unrealistic.
Why? Nuclear power has many other practical drawbacks. First and foremost is the high cost of electricity, which hinders the rapid expansion of nuclear power plants. In Europe, according to the study, this cost ranges from 15 to 19 cents per kWh, and in North America from 15 to 16 cents per kWh. Wind and solar energy are significantly cheaper than 10 cents; for example, the cost of onshore wind energy is estimated at an average of 3.6 cents per kWh.
But it is not only the high cost that hinders the rapid expansion of nuclear power. To significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the energy sector, it would be necessary to commission around 30 GW of new capacity per year, which corresponds to 25–30 large nuclear reactors.
In recent decades, this figure has stood at 10 GW, which was barely enough to compensate for the capacity of decommissioned old nuclear power plants. Such a sharp acceleration in construction does not appear feasible. Even if there were more new projects, nuclear power would simply not be able to play a significant role in global energy production by 2050: the construction cycle for a nuclear power plant may be around 20 years, sometimes longer.
Rosatom’s new nuclear power plant project in Hungary was lauched in 2014, but it was not until 2026 that concrete pouring began for the first reactor. Projects being carried out by Western companies are also facing significant delays. And here it is worth asking Ursula von der Leyen, who tirelessly advocates for new nuclear power plants — which have the highest capital costs of all energy sources: when will these facilities help tackle dependence on Russian supplies or help reduce emissions? In 20 years, 30 years or 50 years — what is the plan?
There is another aspect that receives little attention. Today, around half of all electricity in the EU is generated from renewable energy sources; Germany aims to increase this share to 80% by 2030, and it is far from the only European country with such ambitious plans. Consequently, the question arises as to how renewable and nuclear energy can be integrated into the grid. With a high proportion of wind and solar power in the energy system, rapid load switching is required, something nuclear power is simply incapable of.
In addition to the risks associated with a serious reactor accident, which are difficult to assess in advance, climate change itself also hinders the development of nuclear energy. Locating nuclear power stations by the sea might seem ideal due to the unlimited access to water at a virtually constant temperature, which is essential for cooling the reactors. However, due to rising sea levels and the increasing frequency of extreme weather events, it is precisely in coastal regions that the risk of accident is growing.
If, on the other hand, a nuclear power plant is situated near a major river, equally serious risks arise — heatwaves, droughts and torrential rain could jeopardise nuclear safety.
The Öko-Institut study suggests that, in the best-case scenario, the share of nuclear power in the future will remain at today’s level — around 9% of global electricity generation. But even this will require a significant increase in the construction of nuclear reactors. By way of comparison, in 1996 the share of nuclear power was 17%. The most realistic estimate for 2050, according to the study, is 3–4% of global electricity generation from nuclear power.
And one final point. Even if we turn a blind eye to all the problems associated with nuclear power, print the missing money, take up a flag bearing the slogan ‘Nuclear Power for All’ and hang a drum around our necks, at least one unpleasant problem remains.
Widespread nuclear expansion, in Europe or globally, is impossible today without Putin’s ‘Rosatom’, with its vast uranium enrichment capacity and resources for building nuclear power stations. Throughout the four years of the war, Russian supplies of enriched uranium to the EU have neither ceased nor diminished, reflecting the extent of this dependence — and yet the much-anticipated ‘nuclear renaissance’ has not even begun.
There is not a single country, apart from Russia, that is building dozens of nuclear reactors in various countries with such zeal, albeit not at a rapid pace. It is abundantly clear that for Putin, the key objective is to create dependence on Russian technology and supplies, which translates perfectly into significant political influence. As for (taxpayers’) money, the Russian president has never counted it. Here, for example, an agreement has been signed to allocate approximately $14 billion to Kazakhstan for the construction of a nuclear power plant. Well, that’s peanuts compared to the cost of the war in Ukraine!
The reality in Europe today is that there are at least two necessary conditions for a ‘nuclear renaissance’: making peace with Putin and starting to treat money the way Putin does. Assuming that money is infinite and that economic efficiency is a meaningless concept.
Without these conditions being met, the European ‘nuclear renaissance’ will be limited to financial aid from Brussels to Paris. France, which is critically dependent on nuclear energy, is in dire need of funds to build new nuclear power stations to replace old reactors that will soon have to be decommissioned. These Napoleonic plans cost over €100 billion, and sharing the costs with Brussels is extremely tempting.
And this is not an expansion of the nuclear power network, but merely the preservation of the current status quo of nuclear energy. And France is not alone in this within the EU.
The fundamental problem with nuclear power is that its use is always associated with losses. It is no surprise that Germany no longer wishes to be part of this. The new wave of the ‘nuclear renaissance’ has arisen not because nuclear energy has become cheaper, more efficient or safer than before, but because the system is unwilling to change. It is for this same ‘systemic’ reason that Europe has been unable to stand up more effectively to Putin and the war in Ukraine. However, for now, the ‘renaissance’ exists only on paper. That is where it is likely to remain.