With the emphasis on job creation, green investments, and advancements in mini-reactors, the challenges accompanying this nuclear resurgence are manifold.

The President of the Republic had underscored this commitment during his re-election campaign in May 2022. Months earlier, during a visit to the Arabelle turbine manufacturing site in Belfort, Macron unveiled an ambitious nuclear program.

According to the President, this is the main solution to meet the burgeoning electricity demand driven by increased electrification, to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, and sustain competitive electricity prices to support French businesses. 

Macron has unabashedly hailed nuclear power as a “technology of the future”. France’s current fleet of electricity production reactors comprises 56 pressurised water reactors (PWR), classified as “generation II”, along with an EPR (European Pressurised Water Reactor) reactor presently under construction in Flamanville, Manche, designated as “generation III” .

In January, President Emmanuel Macron declared his intention to outline “the primary directions for the next 8” EPR reactors from the summer onwards, as part of the nuclear power revival, following the launch of six new EPR reactors, during a press conference. 

Nuclear controversy in Germany

Whilst 65 to 70 percent of electricity in France is generated by nuclear, Germany’s figure was only 1.4 percent in 2023. It is indicative of a complicated relationship between Germany’s political parties and nuclear power. 

Amid concerns over gas supplies following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, three policy options were considered by the government: extending the use of existing nuclear fuel, purchasing new fuel elements, or reopening the recently shut-down plants. The Green Party strongly opposed restarting nuclear power stations.

The handling of Germany’s nuclear phase-out during the 2022 energy crisis has drawn scrutiny towards the country’s economic and environment ministries, both under Green Party leadership, for their approach to closing the last three nuclear power plants.

German Federal Minister for Economic Affairs and Climate Action, Robert Habeck, found himself redirected to the Bundestag’s energy committee to defend his controversial policy amid the energy crisis. 

Despite internal discussions and assessments supporting the feasibility of extending the nuclear plants’ lifespans, a change in direction occurred within the environment ministry, citing “reasons of nuclear safety”. 

Minister Habeck defended his ministry’s actions, emphasising the need to focus on replacing Russian natural gas rather than relying on nuclear energy for electricity.

The decision to extend the life of the last three nuclear power plants was eventually reached several months later, reflecting a compromise pushed by the liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP) . 

The handling of this matter has faced criticism from Germany’s conservative opposition, who argue that the process lacked transparency and openness.

Spain’s ongoing debate

Spain’s energy strategy remains a subject of debate, with differing viewpoints on the role of nuclear and renewable energies in achieving sustainability and energy independence.

The Spanish government announced in December plans to phase out the country’s nuclear reactors, with the first plant shutdown scheduled for 2027.

The energy landscape is influenced by Russia’s strategic leveraging of its gas production capacity and the disruption caused by disputes such as the recent gas supply cut-off by Algeria to Morocco, affecting one of Spain’s gas supply routes.

Greenpeace Spain calls for an accelerated transition away from nuclear energy, critiquing Spain’s energy plan for not prioritising a rapid shift towards 100% renewable energy. 

José Luis García, responsible for Greenpeace’s Climate Emergency program, challenges the classification of nuclear energy as ‘green’, emphasising the need to address broader environmental risks associated with nuclear power .

ADVERTISEMENT

While France looks to bolster its energy security by embracing nuclear power alongside renewables, Spain remains steadfast in its commitment to achieve complete denuclearisation by 2035, as outlined in its Comprehensive National Energy and Climate Plan 2021-2030 (Pniec). Including two nuclear powerplants 100 kilometres from the Portuguese border.

Portugal’s  phasing out nuclear, Italy phasing in

Over the past few years, Portugal has taken significant step towards dismantling its long-serving nuclear reactor, which had been instrumental in scientific research and education for over five decades. 

Portugal has taken a firm stance against nuclear energy, with former Minister of Environment and Climate Action, João Pedro Matos Fernandes, highlighting its perceived shortcomings during the 26th United Nations climate conference (COP26) in Glasgow. 

He emphasised that nuclear energy is deemed unsafe, unsustainable, and economically burdensome. 

Italy’s nuclear history saw all four plants closed following a 1990 referendum. A subsequent attempt to reintroduce nuclear power was halted by a 2011 referendum.

ADVERTISEMENT

Italy’s Chamber of Deputies has launched an inquiry into the role of nuclear energy in its energy transition. The country, the only G7 nation without operating nuclear power stations, shut down its last plant over 30 years ago.

The inquiry aims to explore nuclear energy’s potential contribution to Italy’s decarbonisation by 2030 and climate neutrality by 2050. It was supported by pro-nuclear members but faced abstention from others.

Minister of Environment in Italy, which is hosting the G7 meeting this year, said in a recent speech, “We have continued to work with important private companies both on the fission front, therefore on the new generation NUCLEAR with small reactors, and on the fusion front”

Last March, the Minister of Infrastructure and Transport and Deputy Prime Minister Salvini also said that a modern and industrialised country “cannot say no to nuclear energy.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin likely didn’t order the death of opposition leader Alexei Navalny when the 47-year-old collapsed and died in February at an Arctic penal colony, U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded, according to a report. 

While the U.S. has concluded that the Kremlin attempted to kill Navalny in 2020, when he was poisoned by a Soviet-era Novichok nerve agent, and Putin has culpability in his death earlier this year, agencies like the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the State Department have assessed that Putin likely wouldn’t have wanted him killed at that moment, according to the Wall Street Journal citing people familiar with the matter. 

One factor among many in the assessment was that Navalny’s death when he collapsed after a walk at the prison overshadowed Putin’s reelection, sources told the Journal. 

The U.S. increased sanctions on Russia after Navalny’s death. “Make no mistake. Putin is responsible for Navalny’s death,” President Biden said earlier this year. 

A WINDOW INTO ALEXEI NAVALNY’S MIND BEFORE HIS DEATH

Former President Trump told Fox News in March that he thought Putin was “probably” to blame for Navalny’s death after “Media Buzz” host Howard Kurtz asked him if he thought the 71-year-old leader bore “some responsibility.” 

“I don’t know, but perhaps, I mean possibly, I could say probably, I don’t know,” Trump said. “He’s a young man, so statistically he’d be alive for a long time … so something happened that was unusual,”

Navalny had been in prison since 2021, after he returned to Russia from Germany where he had been in a hospital recovering from his poisoning. 

ALEXEI NAVALNY’S DEATH REPRESENTS MAJOR BLOW TO POLITICAL DISSENT IN RUSSIA

Alexei Navalny, center, was allegedly poisoned by the Kremlin in 2020. After he recovered in Germany, he returned to Russia and was jailed in 2021.  (Kirill Kudryavtsev/AFP via Getty Images)

After his death, the Federal Penitentiary Service of the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous District in Russia put out a statement that said: “On Feb. 16, 2024, in penal colony number 3, convict Navalny A.A. felt unwell after a walk, almost immediately losing consciousness. 

“The medical staff of the institution arrived immediately, and an ambulance team was called. All necessary resuscitation measures were carried out, which did not give positive results. Doctors of the ambulance stated the death of the convict. The causes of death are being established.”

His cause of death has not been determined by the U.S. Russian media reports have claimed it was a blood clot. 

Navalny was Putin’s most prominent opposition leader in Russia.  (Mikhail Metzel/Pool/AFP via Getty Images))

Navalny’s allies have called the U.S. assessment naive, and some European countries are skeptical that it wouldn’t have been directed by Putin. 

Navalny’s ally Leonid Volkov said in a statement that anyone claiming Putin didn’t order his death, “clearly do not understand anything about how modern day Russia runs. The idea of Putin being not informed and not approving killing Navalny is ridiculous.”

Slawomir Dębski, of the Polish Institute of International Affairs, said the chances of Navalny’s death being unintentional were small. 

“Navalny was a high-value prisoner, politically, and everybody knew that Putin was personally invested in his fate,” he said, according to the Journal. “The chances for this kind of unintended death are low.” 

Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation has also said that Putin ordered his death to prevent his release in a potential prisoner swap with the U.S. Putin said in March that the two agreed to the swap.