France Wants to Lead Europe on Nuclear. Germany Says No.
The deepest fault line in European energy policy is not about gas or renewables. It is about the atom.
Two visions, one continent
The money problem
The strongest argument against nuclear expansion is not ideological — it is financial. The Hinkley Point C reactor in the UK, originally budgeted at 18 billion pounds, is now projected to cost over 35 billion. Finland's Olkiluoto 3 was 14 years late. France's own Flamanville EPR took 17 years to complete. Every major Western nuclear project of the past two decades has suffered massive cost overruns.
Proponents counter that small modular reactors (SMRs) will change the equation. But no SMR design has yet been commercially deployed in Europe, and the regulatory pathway remains unclear. The promise is real. The timeline is not.
Nuclear is the only proven, scalable, low-carbon baseload technology we have. The question is not whether we need it, but whether we can afford to keep pretending we do not.
Where the debate goes next
The real battleground is taxonomy — the EU's system for classifying sustainable investments. France successfully lobbied to include nuclear in the green taxonomy in 2022, but the fight over financing terms continues. If nuclear projects receive the same favourable lending conditions as wind and solar, investment will flow. If they do not, the economics remain prohibitive for most member states.