European nuclear: recalculating the route to net zero

If Europe’s net-zero drive had a satnav, it would be constantly “recalculating”. Governments are alternating between accelerating renewables and suddenly pivoting to nuclear, driven by security of supply concerns, grid reliability, or market volatility. 

Let’s take a look at the Netherlands approach before zooming out for a wider view with Belgium, France, Spain, Italy and Germany. 

The Netherlands: changing lanes mid-journey 

Last month, the Dutch government postponed two 1 GW offshore wind tenders, citing weak bidder interest and slower demand growth. At the same time, it pushed ahead with plans for two new reactor plants at Borssele, aiming for completion by 2035. 

This inconsistency raises questions: are we using two different route planners? Nuclear is better as baseload power, not a flexible solution. If electrification and hydrogen do not take off as forecast, new capacity could result in over-built baseload, more frequent negative prices and curtailed renewables – crowding out the very technologies the transition relies on. Peak Dutch demand is around 18 GW but existing solar and wind capacity is already high. Adding up to 3.2 GW of baseload would likely see more negative power prices and a surge in the value – but also the cost – of flexibility. 

Belgium’s U-turn 

Belgium once aimed to close all reactors by 2025. After extending the life of Doel 4 and Tihange 3 to 2035, the government has now scrapped the phase-out entirely and is exploring up to 4 GW of new nuclear, as discussed by my colleague Andre Bosschaart in last week’s column. Yet demand projections remain modest. With uncertain hydrogen rollout and slow electrification, expanding the technology could result in excess inflexible baseload, spelling trouble for grid reliability and investor confidence. French firm Engie, operator of Belgium’s nuclear fleet, is not inclined to invest in new plants, leaving the government or foreign investors to fill the gap. 

France: full throttle? 

France provides a cautionary tale. Its grid, with around 70% nuclear, is being reinforced: the government approved six new reactors at a revised cost of EUR 67bn, though the timeline creeps towards 2038. France is also extending its ageing fleet and investing in small modular reactors (SMRs). But if demand lags, these assets could become costly ballast. When supply is high and demand is low, nuclear output curbs renewables and increases volatility. Operators increasingly run assets out of merit or withhold volume to supply grid reserves – either way, system costs climb.

In summer, France must even shut down reactors to accommodate renewables and fast-responding gas, highlighting a system stretched at both ends. 

Spain: a phase-out on pause 

Spain’s nuclear fleet provides about 20% of generation. Although phase-out is scheduled by 2035, parliament recently voted to review the timeline, citing reliability and price risks. Spain’s solar output can already exceed demand at times, forcing curtailment and pushing prices to zero. More baseload could further suppress renewables’ prices and investment, making system balancing harder. The recent blackout has fuelled calls for more “stable” generation but this could undermine market-driven flexibility. 

Italy: restarting the engine 

Italy has reversed its long-standing ban on nuclear, passing a law to set up a regulatory framework by 2027. As a net importer with high gas dependence, the need for diversification is real. However, Italy’s geography poses challenges for new reactors – earthquake and flood risks limit locations and power transfers between north and south are already strained. Overlaying inflexible generation on top of growing renewables could further stress regional balances. 

How long will the red light stay on in Germany? 

Germany shuttered its last reactors in April 2023. Its grid now leans on renewables, coal, and imports (often French nuclear). However, political priorities have shifted. The new government supports nuclear’s inclusion in EU clean power rules, aligning more closely with France. Domestically, there’s no plan to restart old reactors but interest in SMRs and innovation is growing. This pragmatic approach recognises security and economic pressures, with nuclear now back on the policy radar. 

Will demand rise enough? 

Proponents of nuclear argue that soaring power demand – from electrified transport, industry, data centres and hydrogen – will justify new baseload. While the logic is clear, the risk is mistiming: France’s experience with winter demand peaks and summer overcapacity shows the hazards.

Projects have long lead times and need demand to materialise on schedule, or risk years of price distortions and stranded investment. With headlines ranging from “Scandinavian companies eye H2 production for aviation fuels” to “Analysts slash power demand forecasts for Nordic H2 production”, I would be very careful entering a 15-20 year construction period without guarantees.  

Guaranteed revenue, stable policy and long-term subsidies remain prerequisites for investors. 

Obstacles on the road ahead 

Boosting baseload complicates life for flexible and variable generators. Capture prices collapse, investors hesitate and the economics of wind and solar suffer. Finland’s experience is instructive: since 1.6 GW Olkiluoto 3 came online, negative price hours have surged. 

Assuming excess power can always be exported and imports will always be pricey is risky, especially as more countries face similar surplus and deficit cycles. A smarter route is a coordinated journey – shared infrastructure, cross-border investment and less reliance on each country picking a separate technology. 

Policymakers who want to crowd in both nuclear and renewables must plan for flexibility, encourage regional balancing and align investment with market needs. 

Europe’s problem is not technology – it’s down to timing and coordination. Both reactors and wind farms can be built, provided they sync with demand, grid capability and regional dynamics. It will take a strategic, joined-up journey, not more dead-ends and GPS reroutes. With the right map, Europe can reach a net- zero destination that is not only clean but also reliable, investable and fit for the road ahead.

This article originally appeared as a column on montelnews.com