--- title: Five Countries Reversed Their Nuclear Policies This Year. The First New Reactor Is 15 Years Away description: Five countries reversed nuclear policies this year, but new reactors take 15 years and the EU committed just €330m. Too little too late? author: Darie Nani (Editor-in-Chief) date: 2026-04-04T14:29:37.071Z updated: 2026-04-04T14:31:04.823Z canonical: https://www.sovereignmagazine.com/article/europe-nuclear-revival-too-little-too-late image: https://cdn.nanimediahouse.com/hinkley-point-c-dome-lift-big-carl.webp categories: Politics, EU Focus content_type: Editorial region: Europe publication: Sovereign Magazine about: - type: Organization name: European Commission --- European families are watching gas prices climb again. The Iran war has sent oil and energy costs into a spiral that looks uncomfortably familiar, barely two years after Russia's invasion of Ukraine triggered the last one. The European Commission has told people to work from home more and travel less. Policymakers say it could get worse depending on what happens next in the Middle East. And once again, governments across the continent are talking about energy independence. This time, the answer they have settled on is nuclear. Italy is drafting laws to repeal its nuclear ban. Belgium has reversed years of opposition to nuclear investment. Greece, despite its seismic history, has opened a public consultation on advanced reactor designs. Sweden has overturned a four-decade-old decision to abandon the technology. In the UK, Chancellor Rachel Reeves has announced regulatory changes to fast-track nuclear projects, and the government has published the justification for Rolls-Royce's plan to build small modular reactors. In March, at the European Nuclear Energy Summit in Paris, European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen called [Europe's retreat from nuclear power a "strategic mistake."](https://www.sovereignmagazine.com/article/von-der-leyen-nuclear-strategic-mistake-age-verification) She pointed out that in 1990, a third of the continent's electricity came from nuclear. That share has now fallen to around 15 per cent, while Europe imports more than half its energy, mostly oil and gas. She is right about the diagnosis. The treatment is a different question. ## A €330 million answer to a multibillion problem The EU has unveiled a €330 million nuclear investment package, focused on small modular reactors. Brussels says it wants the first SMRs online by the early 2030s. As sums go, €330 million sounds like a plan. It is not. It is a rounding error. Hinkley Point C, a single nuclear plant in Somerset, was supposed to cost £18 billion. It is now expected to cost at least £35 billion, possibly £49 billion at current prices. Flamanville-3, France's flagship new reactor, came in at €12.7 billion after running a decade behind schedule. EDF's provisional estimate for six new reactors in France is €72.8 billion. The EU's investment package would not cover the cost overrun on Flamanville alone. For comparison, the United States and Japan announced a $40 billion joint project to develop SMRs in Tennessee and Alabama last week. That is more than 120 times what the EU has committed. ## Reactors that do not exist yet The centrepiece of Europe's nuclear strategy is small modular reactors. SMRs are designed to be factory-produced, quicker to build than conventional plants, and suited to [powering data centres, hydrogen production and local heating](https://www.sovereignmagazine.com/article/meta-s-nuclear-power-play-sets-the-standard-for-ai-s-energy-future). They are also, as of early 2026, entirely theoretical at commercial scale. No construction licences have been granted anywhere in the EU. Rolls-Royce has regulatory justification to attempt building SMRs in the UK but has not built one. The technology's promise is real, but it remains a promise. Conventional nuclear plants take 15 to 20 years from decision to operation. Even if SMRs cut that timeline significantly, the optimistic projection is "early 2030s" for the first units. That does nothing for a continent where gas prices are surging right now. ## The political will problem Every government announcing a nuclear pivot faces the same constraint: they are broke. European states are already under pressure to increase defence spending to levels demanded by the United States. Welfare systems need funding. Public debt is high. Nuclear power requires the kind of sustained, expensive, multi-decade commitment that is structurally at odds with electoral cycles. France is the only country with an unbroken nuclear industry, and even France cannot build on time or on budget. Flamanville was supposed to take five years. It took 17. Hinkley Point C, built by the same company, has followed the same pattern. Italy has not had a nuclear power plant since 1990. Belgium spent years arguing against the technology. These countries are not reviving existing capacity. They are starting from scratch, without the supply chains, the skilled workforce, or the regulatory infrastructure to move quickly. The political incentive is to announce the pivot. The political cost is in delivering it. Every reactor that runs late and over budget becomes a scandal. Every delay invites the question of whether the money should have gone somewhere else. The leaders making these announcements today will not be in office when the first reactors come online. ## What actually happens next The honest version of Europe's nuclear position is this: the continent dismantled its nuclear capacity over 30 years based on political sentiment rather than evidence. Rebuilding it will take just as long, cost far more, and require a level of political commitment that no current government has demonstrated. In the short term, Europe remains [dependent on fossil fuel imports](https://www.sovereignmagazine.com/article/the-great-green-retreat-why-energy-giants-are-abandoning-climate-pledges) and exposed to the same supply shocks it has faced twice in three years. The nuclear revival does not change that. It cannot. The question is not whether Europe should invest in nuclear. It probably should. The question is whether €330 million, a handful of policy reversals, and a summit in Paris constitute a serious plan, or whether this is crisis politics dressed up as energy strategy. The energy crisis is happening now. The reactors, if they come at all, are a generation away. That gap is the entire problem, and nothing announced so far comes close to closing it. ## FAQ **Q: Does nuclear energy have a future in Europe?** The European Commission projects that EU nuclear capacity will grow from 98 GW in the mid-2020s over the coming decades. Multiple countries have reversed anti-nuclear policies, and the EU has released a nuclear investment package. But growth depends on sustained funding and political will that have not yet materialised at the scale required. **Q: How much does a new nuclear power plant cost in Europe?** New nuclear capacity in Europe costs between €5 billion and €11 billion per gigawatt, according to industry estimates. Individual projects have far exceeded their budgets. Hinkley Point C in the UK was estimated at £18 billion and is now projected at £35 billion to £49 billion. France's Flamanville-3 came in at €12.7 billion, roughly four times its original estimate. **Q: Which countries are building small modular reactors?** As of early 2026, SMRs are in advanced construction stages in Argentina, China and Russia. No EU country has granted a construction licence for an SMR. In the UK, the government has published regulatory justification for Rolls-Royce to attempt building SMRs. The US and Japan have announced a $40 billion joint SMR development project. **Q: Can Germany restart its nuclear power plants?** Technical assessments suggest recommissioning up to six German nuclear power plants is possible. The cost and feasibility depend on how quickly a decision is made. Germany shut down its last three reactors in April 2023 and has not yet committed to reversing that decision, though Berlin has agreed to remove anti-nuclear barriers in EU legislation.