Nuclear energy key to decarbonising Europe, says EESC

Role of Nuclear vs Renewables in Decarbonisation

• One camp sees nuclear as essential baseload to replace coal and gas, citing France’s much lower CO₂ intensity vs Germany, Poland, Italy despite all having substantial renewables.
• Others argue nuclear is “not key” but at best complementary: the real driver is rapidly falling‑cost wind, solar and batteries, already being deployed at far larger scale globally.
• China is used by both sides: some highlight its fast, cheap reactor builds; others note nuclear is a small, slowly growing share compared with explosive wind/solar growth.

Cost, Timelines, and Industrial Capacity

• Critics stress Western new‑build nuclear: very high capital cost, 15–20‑year lead times, and chronic overruns (European EPR projects, Vogtle, Hinkley Point C, planned EPR2).
• Pro‑nuclear replies blame FOAK designs, degraded supply chains, and hostile/chaotic regulation rather than intrinsic tech; point to much faster, cheaper builds in China and Japan.
• Debate over whether Europe has effectively lost its nuclear industrial base vs still having strong firms and expertise that could scale up again.
• SMRs are discussed as a way to standardise and factory‑build, but their eventual costs are viewed as highly uncertain and possibly over‑hyped.

Grid Integration, Intermittency and Storage

• Nuclear supporters emphasise dispatchability and high capacity factors; argue that intermittent renewables plus gas backup yield volatile prices, heavy fossil subsidies, and pollution.
• Renewable advocates counter that new wind/solar are far cheaper per GW and far faster to deploy; storage and grid expansion (including hydrogen‑ready gas plants) are seen as the real bottlenecks.
• There is disagreement on how far renewables plus storage can scale before hitting hard limits in northern Europe’s climate.

Safety, Waste, and Environmental Impacts

• Several argue that, even including Chernobyl and Fukushima, nuclear is among the safest energy sources; fears are labelled “radiophobia”.
• Others focus on low‑probability catastrophic risks and millennia‑scale waste, and point to environmental damage from uranium mining.
• Counter‑arguments note the small physical volume of spent fuel and the substantial, often ignored waste and pollution from fossil fuels and also from renewables (e.g., turbine blades, panel disposal).

Politics, Security, and Manipulation

• Commenters tie European gas dependence (especially on Russia) to nuclear phaseouts and see nuclear fuel as more secure due to diversified uranium supply and stockpiling.
• Opponents highlight links between nuclear and military or national‑prestige agendas, plus corruption and poor governance (e.g., Fukushima decisions).
• Some suspect heavy online lobbying and information operations on all sides—fossil, nuclear, and renewables—making honest debate difficult.