Reducing Europe's Nuclear Energy Sector Was 'Strategic Mistake', EU Chief Says (reuters.com)
- Reference: 0180956346
- News link: https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/26/03/12/0137208/reducing-europes-nuclear-energy-sector-was-strategic-mistake-eu-chief-says
- Source link: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/reducing-nuclear-energy-strategic-mistake-eu-chief-says-2026-03-10/
> [1]Reducing Europe's nuclear energy sector was a "strategic mistake ," European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen said on Tuesday, as governments grapple with an energy crunch from the Iran war. Europe produced around a third of electricity from nuclear power in 1990 but that has fallen to 15%, she told an event in Paris, leaving it reliant on oil and gas imports whose prices have surged in recent days. Being "completely dependent on expensive and volatile imports" of fossil fuels puts Europe at a disadvantage to other regions, von der Leyen said in a speech. "This reduction in the share of nuclear was a choice. I believe that it was a strategic mistake for Europe to turn its back on a reliable, affordable source of low-emissions power."
The report notes that the EU does not directly fund nuclear energy projects because all 27 member states have not unanimously supported the technology. However, von der Leyen said the Commission plans to provide a 200-million-euro guarantee from the EU's carbon market to help attract private investment in innovative nuclear technologies.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/reducing-nuclear-energy-strategic-mistake-eu-chief-says-2026-03-10/
renewables (Score:2)
Have they not also increased energy derived from wind/solar etc. over that time period ?
Re: (Score:1)
Doesn't sound like it has been enough.
I think it would have been better if European governments had recognized that it would be a temporary backlash against nuclear and taken steps to delay closures until the public lost interest. Just use the normal bureaucratic process - announce that there will be a study commission investigating the feasibility of closing the plants and just let it spin its wheels for a few years before quietly shutting it down.
Re: (Score:3)
The mistake was not investing more heavily in renewables. We well as putting Europe in this situation with gas and oil supplies, it allowed China to get ahead with some of the technology and all of the manufacturing.
Re: (Score:2)
I would say the issue was simply lack of common sense. They should have kept nuclear, increased renewable's so they could decrease their dependence on fossils.
Re: renewables (Score:2)
It wasn't a momentary, passing thing. Activism in the west against civil nuclear power, especially in Europe, has been heavily driven by Russian intelligence for decades precisely because - surprise! - kneecapping European energy independence serves Russian goals and makes the Russian petrol empire more money. European energy policy was under sustained attack, and once bad actors got into various drivers seats, the Euros were too proud and arrogant to listen to anybody trying to send up warnings. Now they'r
Re: (Score:2)
They did from about 9.6% in 2004 to about 25.2% in 2024. This if for European Union only. Eurostat data. I do not know what was the renewable percentage in 1990. Definitely lower than in 2004.
Of course, it does not help them much since renewable sources are not dispatch-able. The result is that electricity prices are about 10 times lower at noon when compared to early morning or late evening. Sometimes they may be negative at noon. This is true for spring/summer. The price difference is not so big in autum
Re: (Score:3)
Nuclear is not dispatch-able.
OTOH wind and solar with batteries is the cheapest and most flexible energy source.
Yes, batteries are dispatch-able.
Re: (Score:2)
They were intentionally creating oil dependency on Russia because they thought it would stop Putin from attacking Ukraine since it would crash the Russian economy.
They underestimated Putin's control on the country and his ruthlessness and evil.
Re: renewables (Score:2)
"We're going to make ourselves absolutely dependent on a rabid dog for a thing we have to have and can never actually turn off so that if the rabid dog attacks our neighbor, the rabid dog might be slowed down by us turning off the thing we can't ever actually turn off" is logic that could only ever exist in European parliaments.
Idiots. Arrogant, cowardly idiots with the blood of millions on their hands, now.
Displace the dirtiest first (Score:1)
> Have they not also increased energy derived from wind/solar etc. over that time period ?
The problem is that they did not displace things based on their emissions. Displace the dirtiest first, coal first, then oil, etc. By displacing nuclear first, they increased the use of coal and oil. That was counterproductive. It was pure politics.
Admitting the obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
It's about time they admitted to something that was obvious to almost everyone: nuclear power is the only effective path to carbon-free base load power generation. Wind and solar make good intermittent sources, but base load has to be utterly reliable regardless of whether the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. That's nuclear.
Getting rid of the nukes was a knee-jerk reaction, not a smart technological decision. The pivot to depending on oil and gas from a potential hostile neighbor just added to the madness.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the mistake is imagining that the politicians are doing anything at all based on reason and science, rather than basing everything on politics and vested interests.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nuclear power, as we currently generate it, would result in nuclear power becoming unaffordable before the you'd even built enough power plants to satisfy demand.
If you're not building a fast breeder reactor, you're wasting 99% of uranium's energy potential. If you're not working hard on thorium technology, you're overlooking something that could supply us twice as long as uranium.
Even then, in less than 2000 years nuclear power is no longer viable... at current energy use rates. I'd expect the entire wor
Re:Admitting the obvious (Score:4, Informative)
Don't try facts on the nuclear fanatics. They do not have the braincells to deal with them.
Re: (Score:3)
You know, repeating the lie again and again does still make it a lie.
Re: (Score:2)
Dispatchable power is more important than baseload power, and neither nuclear nor renewables is dispatchable. The carbon-free upgrade for both is grid storage, and Europe's biggest mistake was not adding enough of it.
Re: (Score:2)
> It's about time they admitted to something that was obvious to almost everyone: nuclear power is the only effective path to carbon-free base load power generation.
Anytime anyone uses the word "only" we can see that they aren't looking at any industry with a lens of all variables and instead are fanatical about only key ideas.
> Getting rid of the nukes was a knee-jerk reaction, not a smart technological decision.
For the most part getting rid of nukes was a sane and sensible response to an insanely aging and increasingly less reliable and ever more dangerous source of generation. If you want to talk about technological decisions then *not building new nukes* was not a smart decision. Nothing lasts forever, and it was high time much of what was decommissio
electricity only (in 10-15 years) (Score:2)
"fossil fuels still dominate energy consumption in sectors such as transport", you can build all the nuke plants you want but they still will not power ICE vehicles. Also note that the USA, the world's highest producer of fossil fuels, still imports more than 8 million barrels per day of petroleum from other countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually Europe can't build all the nuclear plants it wants. The only supplier is EDF, assuming you don't want the Chinese to do it. EDF is quoting a minimum of 20 years after approval is given, and that's optimistic.
They can't even build very many because just the ones they have already started were enough for them to run out of money, requiring the French government to increase its stake in EDF.
Re: (Score:3)
> Actually Europe can't build all the nuclear plants it wants. The only supplier is EDF, assuming you don't want the Chinese to do it. EDF is quoting a minimum of 20 years after approval is given, and that's optimistic.
> They can't even build very many because just the ones they have already started were enough for them to run out of money, requiring the French government to increase its stake in EDF.
The Chinese are smart. They have built supply chains for the heavy forgings that allow them to crank out 10 reactors per year, with a goal of 20 per year planned and fully achievable.
So yes, they will sell them to you. That is their plan all along, we are letting them corner the market for heavy forgings, and soon they will supply reactors to the rest of the world just like everything else. This just further illustrates western stupidity.
[1]https://world-nuclear.org/info... [world-nuclear.org]
[1] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-power-reactors/other/heavy-manufacturing-of-power-plants
Re: (Score:2)
EDF is the state-owned French builder of nuclear power plants, but your claim is not true.
Germany has closed its nuclear power plants and is unlikely to build any new ones. Austria and Ireland are unlikely to build any.
However, European countries have a very divided attitude towards nuclear power.
France, with 57 reactors, wants to build 14 new ones and has brought together a variety of EU countries for an alliance. The UK has 11 new reactors in the pipeline. Belgium has lifted its nuclear ban and w
Re: (Score:2)
The UK has two plants on the go, and they are both insanely expensive and 25+ year projects.
Re: (Score:2)
> "fossil fuels still dominate energy consumption in sectors such as transport", you can build all the nuke plants you want but they still will not power ICE vehicles.
Totally, painfully wrong. One of the largest costs of creating alternate fuels that can be used as gasoline are hydrogen (for "hydrotreating") and power for the high temperatures required. Cheap ubiquitious base load power takes these types of alternate fuels from "expensive and experimental" to "commercially viable".
Re: (Score:2)
>> "fossil fuels still dominate energy consumption in sectors such as transport", you can build all the nuke plants you want but they still will not power ICE vehicles.
> Totally, painfully wrong.
Totally, painfully right. As of today, yes, fossil fuels still dominate energy consumption in sectors such as transport.
> One of the largest costs of creating alternate fuels that can be used as gasoline are hydrogen (for "hydrotreating") and power for the high temperatures required. Cheap ubiquitious base load power takes these types of alternate fuels from "expensive and experimental" to "commercially viable".
Maybe. That's speculation about the future. The comment you're replying to is the present-day reality.
Manufacture of synfuels is an energy-intensive process (and typically the carbon source is from fossil-fuel sources such as coal...but, the good news is, coal is not sourced from Russia). Not clear if it will ever be commercially viable, or ever be carbon-neutral.
I'd place my money on el
Re: (Score:2)
Well then maybe you shouldn't have blocked new nuclear construction for the last 50 years dumbfuck.
summary of the summary (Score:2)
> Well then maybe you shouldn't have blocked new nuclear construction for the last 50 years dumbfuck.
That's the tl;dr summary of the summary, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
The oil refineries in the US where built to process heavy crude oil. The US produces mostly light crude oil which is a higher value crude because of what it can be refined into. So the US is importing the cheaper heavy crude oil to use and exporting the more expensive light oil. The US isn't importing oil because our domestic production doesn't cover our use. The US is basically swapping expensive oil for cheap oil and making some money along the way.
Russian Agent Merkel deliberately ruined Europe (Score:2)
Europe: "Europe's nuclear energy sector was a "strategic mistake,""
Also Europe: "Merkel named in EU’s first honours list"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/03/10/angela-merkel-bono-named-eus-first-honours-list/
Re: (Score:2)
Merkel was pro nuclear. It was her constituents and a coalition with the greens that ultimately caused the nuclear shutdown. In fact the government previous to Merkel is the one who introduced the idea of a phase out and ban on building. One of Merkel's early policies was to delay that plan by over a decade giving the entire nuclear industry a lifeline.
But politicians ultimately are the sum of their people. Calling Merkel a Russian agent because of her nuclear decisions is the equivalent of the vast majorit
Von der Leyen is an opportunistic idiot (Score:2)
This is an attempt to assuage the French, who are miffed because their aging nuclear power plants, for which they don't have a contingency plan, don't pass as "renewable". The french have bet the bank on nuclear, so they want money from the EU to help them with their problem. That's all this is about. Germany in particular, the only country which had a sizeable investment in nuclear and gave up on it, will not have future nuclear investments with or without von der Leyen's disregard of reality. Nuclear is t
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. This is political maneuvering, not an actual opinion or fact change. Europe will not have a nuclear renaissance. Nobody is willing to pay for it, far, far too expensive. At the same time renewables are getting better and better and cheaper and cheaper.
Re: (Score:1)
Here is are some facts.
France - 29 g CO2 per kWh
Germany - 334 g CO2 per kWh after spending 500 billion euros and 15 years.
It looks like France isn't the one with a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Who gives a shit about that? Not you, if you rely on EOL nuclear power plants for most of your electricity and can't get them replaced fast enough or economically or at all.
BTW, if you're thinking, how irresponsible of me to disregard CO2 emissions: USA 384 g CO2 per kWh, at more than twice the electricity consumption per capita compared to Germany. The future for all this is wind and solar at 0 g CO2 per kWh. We're never going to do it because it's the best, so it's a good thing that it's also the cheapest
Re: (Score:2)
Please stuff your lies by misdirection up your behind.
not renewable [Re:Von der Leyen is an opportun...] (Score:2)
> This is an attempt to assuage the French, who are miffed because their aging nuclear power plants, for which they don't have a contingency plan, don't pass as "renewable".
That is, of course, accurate. Nuclear power is a low carbon-dioxide emission energy source, but it is literally not renewable (since it mines uranium for fuel, and uranium does not renew itself.)
In principle, it could be hundreds or even thousands of years before the supply of uranium is a problem, if we used the uranium efficiently, but with today's reactors, with no fuel reprocessing and no breeder reactors, if we used nuclear for all the electrical generation in the world, we would run out in a few deca
Re: (Score:2)
>> This is an attempt to assuage the French, who are miffed because their aging nuclear power plants, for which they don't have a contingency plan, don't pass as "renewable".
> That is, of course, accurate. Nuclear power is a low carbon-dioxide emission energy source, but it is literally not renewable (since it mines uranium for fuel, and uranium does not renew itself.)
> In principle, it could be hundreds or even thousands of years before the supply of uranium is a problem, if we used the uranium efficiently, but with today's reactors, with no fuel reprocessing and no breeder reactors, if we used nuclear for all the electrical generation in the world, we would run out in a few decades.
Which is more of a political issue than technological; since if we wanted would could build the facilities.
Summer is coming (Score:2)
So the PV will actually start putting out useful amounts of power.
Until then it's wind turbines, assuming March in Europe is as windy as it is in North America.
Re: (Score:2)
Should have posted this with the other post,
3000 MW installed wind and the last few days have been productive. Wind and solar together are the green line.
[1]https://transmission.bpa.gov/b... [bpa.gov]
[1] https://transmission.bpa.gov/business/operations/wind/baltwg.aspx
duh (Score:1)
obviously. It was clear as day [1]to me decade and a half ago [slashdot.org].
The West is really really really shortsighted. Like seriously shortsighted, arrogant, incapable of learning or making any smart strategic choices. This is in regards to everything, wars, weapons, power generation, allowing Islam to penetrate its borders, now even cheering FOR Islam and against Israel, not taking out putin and all of his little helpers all around the world judiciously, printing money like it's out of style, getting rid of manufactu
[1] https://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3270349&cid=42074975
Perhaps spared nuclear catastrophe (Score:2)
Hindsight is a funny thing. There otherwise might have been a major accident.
Re: (Score:2)
Energy experts too, which is probably more credible than a minimally-educated dementia patient.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, sexual energy with young girls :-D
Re: Well, no shit, Sherlock! (Score:2)
Hey, they use friction in generator turbines, right? ðY
Re: (Score:1)
He fell asleep at his own Cabinet meeting.
Re: (Score:2)
So very strong evidence that this was the RIGHT decision then?
Re: (Score:2)
> Trump told them this 6 fucking years ago.
Because 6 years is the time time build a power plant? What makes you think this has anything to do with Trump?