Energy security has once again taken on urgent priority in the European Union, as the Iran war reveals how exposed many member states still are to abrupt oil and gas supply shocks — despite the lessons of Russia's full‑scale invasion of Ukraine four years ago.  

The crisis has prompted member states to reexamine their efforts to diversify and cut their reliance on external energy sources. It has also sparked a fresh push for nuclear power.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said last month that Europe's turn away from nuclear energy had been a "strategic mistake."

Brussels is now considering additional funding for nuclear, prioritizing the deployment of so-called Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) in the bloc by the early 2030s.

Even in Germany, which completely switched off all its reactors, debate is raging over returning to nuclear.

Chancellor Friedrich Merz says the nuclear phase-out was a "serious strategic mistake" but "irreversible." His close political ally and Bavaria's state premier, Markus Söder, though says "it is time for a new era of nuclear energy" and plans to build SMRs in his state.

"The EU's renewed focus on expanding nuclear energy is a strategically sound response to the region's long-term energy security and climate goals," said Henry Preston, spokesperson for the World Nuclear Association, an industry body. "Nuclear remains unique in providing clean, secure and scalable electricity." 

Focus on SMRs 'misplaced strategy'

SMRs are next‑generation nuclear plants typically designed to produce less than 300 MW of electricity— roughly a third of the output of conventional reactors.

Supporters say they will be cheaper, faster and safer to deploy than traditional reactors.

But opponents sharply criticize the EU's renewed focus on nuclear.

It is "a misplaced strategy," said M. V. Ramana, professor at the University of British Columbia, whose research focuses on nuclear energy risks and disarmament.

He argued that SMRs end up costing more per unit of power than traditional large reactors "because their material and work requirements do not scale linearly with power capacity."

Luke Haywood, head of Climate and Energy at the European Environmental  Bureau (EEB), said "pouring money into new nuclear, especially unproven SMRs, won't solve any of our energy problems."

He slammed nuclear as a "costly distraction."

"It's too slow to build, too expensive, and too risky. SMRs are even further behind: years, if not decades, away from deployment at scale," Haywood told DW.

Can nuclear contribute to baseload energy?

To reduce reliance on fossil fuels, EU countries have ramped up wind and solar power in recent years.

Renewable sources now supply nearly half of the bloc's electricity and around a quarter of its total energy demand.

Still, proponents of nuclear energy argue that it is essential for providing consistent baseload power — the minimum level of electricity required 24/7 — unlike intermittent sources such as wind and solar.

Malwina Qvist, director of the Nuclear Energy Program at the NGO Clean Air Task Force (CATF), said that renewables and flexible power generation aren't enough to achieve a zero-carbon economy.

She pointed out that Germany generates far more electricity from renewables than France — around 59% compared to 28% — yet its grid emits over 16 times more carbon dioxide.

"Germany's nonrenewable generation is overwhelmingly coal and gas, whereas in France, nuclear provides around 67% of electricity at near-zero carbon," Qvist said.

Without clean firm power — energy that is both low-carbon and available whenever it's needed — countries inevitably fall back on fossil fuels, the expert underlined.

"This is where SMRs come in. As part of the clean firm power toolkit, their modular design, lower upfront costs, and ability to provide industrial heat make them especially suited for hard‑to‑abate industrial sectors," she said, pointing to chemicals, steel and cement industries, which need reliable heat as well as power.

But Haywood said nuclear is a poor fit for an energy system dominated by wind and solar.

"Nuclear is not a natural partner for a renewables-based system," he said, noting that "modern energy systems need flexibility, plants that can ramp up and down, and not reactors that must run constantly to be economical." 

That is why the idea of nuclear for baseload energy is outdated, he stressed.

Ramana echoed this view, emphasizing demand‑side management, expanded battery storage, and flexible generation to balance the variable output of solar and wind.

"Investing in SMRs or nuclear power more generally will only divert funding from these more promising pathways," he underlined.

Are SMRs safer than traditional reactors?

Safety remains a persistent concern for all nuclear technologies, including small modular reactors.

SMRs are considered safer by some due to their lower capacity, smaller inventory of nuclear fuel and reliance on passive safety systems that are designed to operate without external power supply.

Sara Beck, head of the Safety Research Division at the Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS), Germany's central expert organization in the field of nuclear safety, said "general statements about the safety of SMRs are not possible," pointing to "substantial technical and conceptual differences between individual SMR designs."

SMRs currently lack a single standard design, with dozens of concepts in development worldwide.

Globally, only two SMR projects have been built so far, one in Russia and the other in China, both based on different designs.

Many novel SMR concepts use "new materials that introduce specific safety-related challenges," Beck told DW, adding that "substantial research and development is still required."

The nuclear safety expert also pointed out that using SMRs to power new industrial uses introduces fresh risks. "The coupling of SMRs with additional applications, such as hydrogen production, heat supply, or seawater desalination, might introduce additional potential risks," she explained, citing challenges such as chemical effects on components, cross-contamination and explosion hazards following hydrogen release.

Ramana said all nuclear plants, including SMRs, can undergo accidents resulting in widespread radioactive contamination. He also underscored that, despite decades of funding and research, a safe and proven method for handling radioactive waste remains elusive.

Need for a well-executed EU SMR program?

Qvist, the CATF expert, agreed that SMRs remain a novel technology whose economics is largely unproven at scale in Western markets.

But she believes they have a role to play amid fast rising demand for carbon-free and reliable energy.

"Global demand for clean firm power is growing rapidly, and developing economies, industrial clusters, and data center operators need reliable low-carbon energy," she said.

The expert stressed the need for a well-executed EU SMR program, focusing on standardized designs and coordinated procurement.

Creating a globally competitive export platform would "do for EU nuclear industry what Airbus did for aviation," she said, adding "if the EU fails to develop a competitive offering, it risks ceding that ground entirely to geopolitical rivals."

As Europe grapples with energy-security strains in a rapidly changing geopolitical and economic landscape, the debate over nuclear power shows no sign of fading.

Edited by: Kristie Pladson