Hefty upfront costs, issues disposing of radiation and waste, and memories of terrible accidents have all contributed to Europe’s reluctance to embrace nuclear energy in recent decades.
But the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz amid the U.S.-Iran war has exposed the continent’s vulnerability to disrupted energy imports – and nuclear may offer Europe a lifeline.
IEA chief Fatih Birol previously told CNBC that nuclear power would get a “boost” from the supply crisis and urged governments to bolster their resilience with alternative energy sources.
Nuclear energy produces significantly fewer emissions than fossil fuels, plants take up minimal space on the landscape, and reactors are extremely reliable in all weather conditions.
“I think nuclear has to play a big role in solving this problem for Europe,” Chris Seiple, vice chairman of Wood Mackenzie’s power and renewables division, told CNBC.
The U.S., China and France are all better placed to deal with the supply shock caused by the war, in part because they are the three largest producers of nuclear energy worldwide.
“If you don’t have a natural energy supply, then your energy costs are going to be higher to import it from somewhere, or you’re going to have to build some degree of nuclear,” Michael Browne, global investment strategist at Franklin Templeton, told CNBC.
“It’s expensive but very efficient, as France has shown. French energy prices are significantly lower than German prices.”
EDF nuclear plants in France.
Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images
France is Europe’s poster child in the space, with over 60% of its energy needs met by nuclear power.
More nations are taking action, too. The Iran war is “serving as a significant turning point” for South Korea to shift away from oil and into alternatives, according to its climate minister Kim Sung-hwan.
In an interview with CNBC’s Lisa Kim, Sung-hwan said nuclear and renewables will form the “two central pillars” of future energy supply.
It raises the question of whether other European countries, like the U.K. and Germany, which have for decades been mostly decommissioning reactors, will look to build out their nuclear capabilities in a bid to provide greater insulation against future energy supply shocks.
A long-term view
Analysts see a strong argument for increasing the prominence of nuclear power as a key component of European nations’ energy strategy.
As of 2025, nuclear comprises just 11.8% of Europe’s total energy mix, while oil and gas still account for over a third, according to data from Eurostat.
“The easiest way to ensure energy security is to diversify your sources,” Adnan Shihab-Eldin, senior visiting research fellow at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, told CNBC.
“The mistake made by Germany and many other European countries was to put ideology first, in believing that nuclear power is bad.”
Getting plants up and running, however, can take decades. The U.K.’s Hinkley Point C – poised to be its first nuclear reactor in over 30 years – began work in 2016 and is not expected to finish until towards the end of the decade.
It will provide electricity for 6 million people and supply 7% of the country’s power.
Flamanville 3 in France, which opened in 2024, took 17 years to come online.
“By the time a nuclear plant commissioned today actually comes online, the energy landscape may look very different,” Chris Aylett, research fellow in the Environment and Society Centre at Chatham House, told CNBC. “Renewable projects can also be up and running much faster.”
The key to success in European nuclear projects, according to Wood Mackenzie’s Seiple, is to find a cheaper way to build – and that may mean relying on cheaper technology from China.
“Outside of the U.S. and Europe, the rest of the world has found a path to building cost competitive nuclear facilities,” he added.
“It’s more a matter of regulation and building the workforces to support it.”
However, co-operation seems unlikely.
“In principle, working with Chinese firms to roll out nuclear in Europe could be cheaper and faster, but it seems like a political non-starter, given concerns about security and losing strategic industries,” Chatham House’s Aylett added.
Public perceptions
The two most damaging nuclear disasters in history – Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011 – each tarred the technology in the eyes of the public, leading politicians to decommission projects.
But Europe’s second energy crisis in four years may be changing public attitudes, according to Aylett.
“Nuclear is seen as a ‘domestic’ source of energy, as its supply chain is not as exposed to geopolitical turmoil and price shocks as oil and gas,” he said.
“The political climate is clearly more favorable too, with governments in Europe and beyond revisiting previous moratoriums and pledging to promote nuclear power.”
But the work of preparing future generations to deal with the nuances in the nuclear debate is “not for the weak of heart,” Shihab-Eldin said.
“You cannot just go in and out – it requires bringing education back, because it’s with education that the public will support the politicians, and the politicians will respond to the public.”
