Debunking the fallacies behind Spain’s nuclear phase-out
In recent years, the anti-nuclear movement—driven by political, economic, and allegedly environmental motives—has promoted a series of arguments to justify the shutdown of nuclear power plants in Spain. These arguments, relentlessly repeated by politicians, journalists, environmental activists, alternative energy advocates, and opinion makers, are misleading and based on false data or half-truths. In this article, we examine the five most common fallacies and explain why nuclear energy is still essential for Spain’s future.
By Alfredo García @OperadorNuclear
‘We don’t know what to do with radioactive waste’
One of the most frequently cited arguments is that radioactive waste poses an unsolvable problem. However, this assertion disregards the significant advancements made in waste management over the past few decades.
High-level waste, primarily spent fuel, consists of stable solid ceramics that are insoluble in water. They pose no risk of exploding like an atomic bomb (as this is physically impossible due to their low enrichment) or melting down like in nuclear accidents (due to their low residual heat).
This waste is stored in shielded steel and concrete containers designed to effectively block radiation and keep the fuel cool without requiring an external power supply. This ensures safe and sustainable long-term containment.
In December 2004, the Industry Committee of the Spanish Congress unanimously approved a resolution urging the government, in collaboration with Enresa (the public company in charge of managing radioactive waste, which has been financed by the companies that generate it since 2006), to develop criteria for establishing a temporary storage facility for spent fuel and high-level waste in Spain.
This is a scientifically backed, safe solution that is already in use in Japan, France, Switzerland, Sweden, Belgium, Germany, the United Kingdom, Russia, and the Netherlands. Habog, the Netherlands’ storage facility, serves as a model for the Spanish project. After years of political roadblocks, the project remains stalled, perpetuating the false notion that we do not know how to manage nuclear waste.
Moreover, long-term solutions are already available, such as fuel recycling—already used in France—or storage in deep geological repositories, 500 metres underground, a method currently being implemented in Finland and Sweden. In contrast, Spain has allowed the issue to become more political than technical.
‘Nuclear power plants are not profitable’
Another common misconception is that nuclear energy is not economically viable. In reality, nuclear power plants generate electricity at highly competitive costs. The real issue lies in the heavy tax burden imposed on nuclear energy, with punitive taxation in Spain making it less competitive than other technologies.
A report by PriceWaterhouse Coopers highlights how these taxes have created an ‘artificial problem,’ inflating nuclear energy generation costs and undermining its competitiveness. Additionally, instead of moving forward with a CTS, the government has opted to build eight decentralised temporary storage sites at an additional cost of between 2 and 3.5 billion euros.
This additional financial burden has been unilaterally imposed on the companies that own nuclear power plants, allowing the government to create the illusion of unviability. In short, the profitability issue is a direct result of deliberate policy decisions aimed at undermining the nuclear sector to justify its shutdown and force its company-initiated closure.
‘No company wants to build nuclear power plants in Spain’
It is often claimed that there are no companies interested in investing in nuclear projects in Spain. However, this argument ignores the fact that no businesses are willing to invest in projects that the government itself has banned or made clear it will not approve.
By that logic, the Saudi government could argue that no company wants to build a distillery in their country. In Spain, the government has actively pursued a nuclear phase-out as part of its electoral programme, creating one of the most hostile regulatory environments for nuclear energy in Europe.
In countries like the United Kingdom, Poland, and Finland, where such restrictions do not exist, nuclear projects are a tangible reality, and have the support of both the business sector and the government.
While the construction of new nuclear power plants is a consistent trend in the global energy sector, in Spain, political and regulatory obstacles discourage any business interest in this field. Lack of investment is not due to disinterest, but rather to the institutional road blocks to such projects.
‘Spain doesn't have uranium and depends on imports’
Another recurring misconception is that Spain should not invest in nuclear energy because it depends on foreign uranium. In fact, Spain has high-quality uranium deposits in Salamanca, with enough reserves to power its plants for several decades, as outlined in the 2022 Uranium report by the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA).
However, the government expressly banned uranium mining by adding article 10 to Law 7/2021, of 20 May, on climate change and energy transition, just when a company had applied for permission to exploit a deposit in the region.
The paradox is clear: while promoting a narrative of energy dependence, the government restricts the exploitation of domestic resources that could reduce said dependence. Furthermore, uranium is easy to store and less vulnerable to price fluctuations or the effects of geopolitical tensions.
Countries like Canada and Australia already have large reserves and are reliable suppliers. So, the argument about dependence is built on a ban that could easily be lifted if national energy interests were prioritised over others.
‘Who will foot the bill for extending the life of nuclear power plants?’
This argument suggests that the cost of extending the lifespan of nuclear power plants will fall on the State and, by extension, on citizens. The reality is that nuclear power plants do not require extraordinary investment to continue operating.
Each year, during scheduled refuelling outages, equipment is replaced and systems are modernised based on wear and tear, manufacturer recommendations, and current regulations. All of these costs are borne by the owning companies, as noted in the previous statement by the Nuclear Forum, which remains open to dialogue about the energy policy defined by the National Government, published on 7 July 2023.
Nuclear power plants undergo rigorous and ongoing maintenance, and extending their lifespan simply involves continuing the regular cycle of upgrades, improvements, and maintenance. There are no additional costs beyond those already factored in and assumed by the industry. Thus, the fallacy of an alleged ‘nuclear bailout’ is unfounded: nuclear power plants in Spain are financed and managed without the need for public capital.
The anti-nuclear arguments in Spain are based on myths and fallacies. Ultimately, as the infamous Goebbels once said, when these lies are repeated incessantly, they become truths for many misinformed people.
In reality, nuclear energy offers Spain a reliable, cost-effective, and clean source of energy, essential for a balanced energy system that is less reliant on foreign sources. Dismantling this sector would not only be a strategic mistake but outright energy suicide.
In the context of climate change, gas price volatility, and geopolitical tensions, maintaining and strengthening the country’s nuclear fleet is essential to ensuring energy security and financial stability for Spain—something that the vast majority of the world’s advanced nations are already doing.
The myths surrounding nuclear energy must be replaced by an informed, science-based, and realistic debate that prioritises the interests of families and businesses, while ensuring the well-being of future generations.