Europe looks again at nuclear energy. Spain cannot go in the opposite direction.

For years, in Brussels, a mantra was repeated: “renewables, renewables, renewables”. And yes: renewables are essential. But this week the president of the European Commission herself, Ursula von der Leyen, has verbalized something that many citizens, technicians, and companies have been warning about for a long time: turning its back on nuclear was a strategic mistake for Europe.

It is not a minor phrase. It implies accepting that energy sovereignty is not built only with objectives, but with a mix that guarantees three basic things: available electricity, at a reasonable price and with stability in the grid.

The Commission, furthermore, has presented its new energy package focused on affordability and security of supply. In this context, the nuclear debate ceases to be taboo. There is open talk of investment, of extending useful life, of new modular reactors and of European industrial capacity. If Europe wants to compete, decarbonize and become independent from third parties, it cannot renounce a firm, low-emission source with European technology.

The Spanish contradiction

And here appears the great Spanish contradiction.

While Europe rectifies, Spain moves forward with a calendar of total closure of its nuclear power plants which begins with Almaraz in 2027. I write these lines after visiting the plant a few weeks ago with the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions. This is not a theoretical debate. We are talking about jobs, families, industry, and the security of the electricity system.

Last Tuesday, from the Spanish Delegation of the ECR, we sent a letter to Executive Vice-President Teresa Ribera, Commissioner Dan Jørgensen and President von der Leyen. We accompanied it with a public note, warning of an uncomfortable truth: if Spain imposes a nuclear shutdown on itself, our dependence on gas and energy imports will inevitably increase. And that not only affects Spain, it affects the Iberian Peninsula, Portugal and the stability of the European interconnected system.

A debate of realism

What is at stake is not a simple "nuclear yes or no" debate, but whether Europe can afford to lose energy capacity at the same time that it demands reindustrialization, more data centers, electrification of transport, hydrogen development, and greater strategic autonomy.

Nuclear energy does not compete with renewables: it complements them. When there is no wind or no sun, the economy cannot stop. Hospitals cannot “wait until tomorrow”. And a modern electrical grid needs physical stability, not just megawatts. This debate is, above all, a debate of realism.

Europe is starting to recognize it. Von der Leyen has recalled that, since 1990, the weight of nuclear power in the EU has fallen from approximately one third to around 15%. At the same time, the Commission estimates that nuclear power today provides around 23% of European electricity and more than half of low-carbon electricity. If we talk about climate, this matters. If we talk about prices, also. If we talk about independence, even more.

That is why the Commission estimates investment needs of hundreds of billions until 2050 and has presented a strategy to accelerate small modular reactors (SMR). Europe does not want to be left behind in a technology that the rest of the world is promoting.

Spain, however, seems determined to do the opposite: close firm capacity and replace it with more gas when renewables are lacking. It is a climate nonsense and an industrial error.

Furthermore, there is a factor that is too hidden: taxation. A PwC report concludes that the tax burden has increased by more than 70% in the last five years and that, between 2025 and 2035, taxes and fees could exceed 40% of total operating costs. Simply put: a strategic technology is being pushed towards economic unviability by political decision.

As a member of the ITRE committee and head of the Spanish ECR delegation, I see it every week: any serious investor asks about energy price, supply stability, and grid capacity. If we close nuclear plants without a firm alternative, we will lose competitiveness, scare away investment, and curb job creation.

Therefore, from the ECR we advocate a concrete and reasonable path: revoke the regulatory framework that leads to programmed closure and replace it with a new law that allows extending the useful life of the plants, with safety, transparency, and a realistic timetable.

There is, furthermore, a European dimension that we cannot ignore: Spain's energy decisions affect supply security in southern Europe. What happens in Spain does not stay within our borders.

In Almaraz, furthermore, the clock is ticking. Autumn 2026 is a de facto deadline. Once certain technical milestones advance, reversing the closure becomes extremely difficult and costly. Action must be taken now.

Europe now has an opportunity: coherence. If the Commission recognizes that penalizing nuclear was a strategic error, it cannot look the other way. Energy sovereignty is built with brave decisions based on evidence.

The final message is clear: let's not close clean and firm energy to open more gas and more dependence. If Europe wants to be free, first it has to be able to turn on the light with its own resources.