POLICY & FINANCE | CREATING A STABLE FRAMEWORK
Shaping the nuclear future
Europe has seen a return of the long-criticised atom as a potential source of energy. Yet challenges remain in creating political acceptance, geopolitical
considerations, financing, and technology choice. Comparing Sweden with the Netherlands illustrates the challenge of creating appropriate long-term political frameworks.
By Michel Delapierre
NUCLEAR ENERGY OCCUPIES A PARADOXICAL position in contemporary energy policy. On one hand, it is presented as a cornerstone of energy security, offering stable, low- carbon electricity crucial to climate mitigation. On the other, nuclear projects remain vulnerable to political currents, making deployment unpredictable despite their technical sophistication. The German phase-out following the Fukushima disaster illustrates how policy shifts can reshape not only a country’s, but also a continent’s energy security for decades. Unlike wind or solar power, which can expand relatively
quickly (3–10 years), nuclear projects demand years of planning, immense capital investment, and sustained regulatory approval. Their nature makes them highly sensitive to political environments. This sensitivity manifests across technology choice,
licensing, financing, local acceptance, and public consultation. Decisions in these areas are not purely technical but are entangled with electoral cycles, political agendas, and public opinion. Without stable political support, nuclear projects risk delays, cost overruns, or outright cancellation. Beyond national politics, European-level frameworks – market design, sustainability classifications, and cross-
border electricity integration – shape investor expectations and public debate. Nuclear’s positioning within these frameworks has implications for access to finance, eligibility for state aid, and the perceived legitimacy of long-duration support schemes. In practice, this often translates into a premium on policy durability: investors and utilities scrutinise not just today’s coalition agreements but also the likelihood that support mechanisms will survive into the 2030s and 2040s when projects actually deliver electrons to the grid.
Sweden and the Netherlands provide instructive
examples of how politics can accelerate, delay, or derail nuclear initiatives. Sweden’s approach is more market- driven, while the Dutch model is more state-driven, offering two contrasting paths toward nuclear expansion.
The Swedish approach Sweden’s nuclear history illustrates the weight of political decisions. A 1980 referendum mandated a gradual phase-out of nuclear energy, but in 2010 the government reversed this policy, allowing new reactors to be considered. In 2023, a new plan set targets of at least 2500 MW of nuclear capacity by 2035, aiming for 10,000–12,000 MW by 2045.
Above: The 482 MW Borssele is the Netherland’s only operating nuclear power plant and was commissioned in 1973 Source: Fortum
14 | November 2025 |
www.neimagazine.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45
