Reviving nuclear power in Europe as a necessary solution to combat global warming and secure energy

 In recent months, Europe has witnessed a radical shift in governmental and public discourse regarding nuclear energy. After years of decline (particularly following the Fukushima disaster in Japan, which led Germany to decide to phase out nuclear power), nuclear energy has resurfaced as a "necessary" and "sustainable" solution to address the twin challenges of climate change and dependence on Russian gas. This shift is redrawing the continent's energy map, revealing clear divisions between those who support nuclear power, provided it is safe, and those who believe its risks outweigh its benefits.

From the perspective of mitigating climate change, nuclear energy offers a significant advantage: near-zero carbon emissions during operation. To achieve "carbon neutrality" by 2050, energy experts argue that a rapid transition to renewables (solar and wind) alone may not be sufficient to guarantee grid stability, as these sources are intermittent. This is where nuclear energy comes in as a "basic load" source, providing stable and high-density energy to fill the gaps left by renewable energy sources. This logic is what led the European Union to classify nuclear and natural gas as "green" activities under certain conditions in its tax classification system, a decision that provoked strong disapproval from some environmental organizations.

From an energy security perspective, the war in Ukraine disrupted Russian gas supplies via pipelines, revealing the vulnerability of Europe's dependence on gas. Countries that relied on nuclear power (such as France) found themselves in a relatively better position compared to those that shut down their reactors (such as Germany, which had to postpone the closure of some coal-fired power plants to mitigate the crisis). This reality prompted governments like those of Britain, the Netherlands, and Poland to announce plans to build new nuclear power plants, driven by the need for independence from importing conventional fuels.

A key technological development in this field has been the focus on "small modular reactors" (SMRs). These reactors are smaller, safer, and significantly cheaper than conventional large reactors. They can be manufactured in factories and transported to the operating site, reducing the lengthy construction periods and problems that plagued previous projects. The European Union is banking on this technology to modernize its energy grid, but full commercial reliance on it is still at least a decade away.

On the other hand, the issue of long-lived nuclear waste remains a major ethical and environmental obstacle. To date, no country in the world has succeeded in developing a fully functional, permanent, and permanent repository for highly radioactive waste. Countries like Finland and France are leading efforts in this direction, but social (community refusal to allow storage in their areas) and political problems are hindering progress. Nuclear opponents argue that we are passing on the potential for disaster to future generations in exchange for immediate economic benefits.

There is also the issue of economic cost. Building a nuclear power plant requires investments of billions of euros and a long timeframe (sometimes exceeding 10 years), making it a risky investment compared to renewable energy, which has become much cheaper. This necessitates significant government support and financial guarantees to reassure private investors to enter the market.

The debate on nuclear energy in Europe has moved beyond the question of "yes or no" to the question of "how?" Europe is moving towards an energy mix that includes everything: renewable energy, nuclear power, and perhaps some fossil fuels as a backup. The future will depend on the ability of technology to provide safe and effective solutions, and on the ability of societies to accept calculated risks in exchange for access to clean and abundant energy.