The Challenges of Nuclear Power Expansion in Belgium and the Netherlands

Many European governments are eager to expand nuclear power to address the perceived “energy gap” and improve their CO2 emissions. However, the reality of reviving nuclear energy is far more complex than politicians anticipate. The key stakeholders in nuclear projects – investors, plant operators, and local communities – often do not align, as evidenced by the struggles faced by Belgium and the Netherlands.

Belgium Reverses Nuclear Phase-Out Decision

Belgium recently formed a new government led by the Flemish regionalist Bart De Wever, which aims to expand nuclear power. However, the operator of these plants, the French company Engie, opposes this move as part of its strategy to phase out nuclear energy.

The Belgian Nuclear Debate

Belgium has been indecisive about nuclear power for over two decades. Despite a law passed 22 years ago to phase out and decommission nuclear plants, changing attitudes towards nuclear energy due to geopolitical events and rising energy prices have led to reconsideration. While some reactors are being shut down, Engie has reluctantly agreed to extend the lifespan of two reactors until 2035, at a considerable cost.

However, De Wever seeks further extensions and exploration of reactivating decommissioned plants, contradicting Engie’s business strategy. Engie’s CEO in Belgium has emphasized that extending operations beyond 2035 is “unthinkable.” Such uncertainty makes it challenging for Belgium to attract investors and operators for plant extensions or new facilities.

The Dutch Struggle for Nuclear Investment

Similarly, the Netherlands face obstacles in nuclear power development. Despite discussions to build four new plants, private investors are reluctant due to political wavering on nuclear energy and the prolonged construction timelines with frequent cost overruns.

Challenges in the Netherlands

The Dutch government’s ambitious nuclear plans have faltered, with the climate minister acknowledging the unrealistic timeline for any new plants by 2035. The lack of expertise in nuclear energy governance further complicates matters.

Initially considering subsidies and guarantees to attract investors, the government has now abandoned this approach due to the mismatch between risk and reward for the state.

Community Concerns in Both Countries

Nuclear energy remains a desired energy source for policymakers in Belgium and the Netherlands to enhance energy security and reduce CO2 emissions. However, garnering public support, even in regions with existing nuclear facilities, proves challenging.

Local Resistance and Financial Concerns

In the Netherlands, the only nuclear plant in Borssele is owned predominantly by the province of Zeeland and local municipalities, with reluctance to extend operations due to financial and technical uncertainties. The desire to sell their shares reflects concerns over high financial risks, especially regarding decommissioning.

Both Belgium and the Netherlands face significant hurdles in nuclear energy resurgence, as highlighted by the International Energy Agency’s report emphasizing the industry’s need to overcome obstacles for a nuclear comeback and its role in the energy transition.