Eight years ago, an earthquake and tsunami in North-Eastern Japan (which claimed more than 15,000 lives) lead to three nuclear meltdowns and the release of radioactive material at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. It was the largest nuclear disaster since the 1986 Chernobyl incident.

Environmentalists seized on the accident as further proof of the dangers of nuclear technology. Several European countries have already phased out (or are phasing out) nuclear power, including Austria, Belgium, Germany, Italy, and Sweden. Others, such as Ireland and Lithuania, have no nuclear reactors at all. Some EU Member States, however, are planning to either renew or expand their nuclear power infrastructure; Poland (which currently does not produce nuclear power) is planning to construct 6 nuclear plants, and the UK will soon need to replace its ageing reactors.

Critics argue that phasing out nuclear power is more difficult than it seems. Germany, for example, has been forced to rely more on coal power plants since its nuclear phase-out, which are much more polluting in terms of CO2 emissions (plus, coal ash is significantly more radioactive than nuclear waste).

What do our readers think? We had a comment sent in from Mark on our ‘Suggest a Debate’ page, arguing that “nuclear energy should not be used and is dangerous”. Is he right? Should European countries abandon the technology?

Should all EU Member States ban nuclear power? We asked Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) from all sides of the political spectrum to stake out their positions on this question, and it’s up to YOU to vote for the policies you favour. See what the different MEPs have to say, then vote at the bottom of this debate for the one you most agree with! Take part in the vote below and tell us who you support in the European Parliament!

Radical Left
Cornelia Ernst (GUE/NGL), Member of the European Parliament:

Terry Reintke (Group of the Greens), Member of the European Parliament:

Liberal Democrats
Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE), Member of the European Parliament:

Centre Right
Bendt Bendtsen (EPP), Member of the European Parliament:

Hans-Olaf Henkel (ECR), Member of the European Parliament and Vice-Chair of the European Conservatives and Reformists Group:


Roger Helmer (EFDD), Member of the European Parliament and UKIP spokesman on Energy (NOTE: We contacted EFDD MEPs for comment but they did not reply in time for publication. The below is from a blog post published by Roger Helmer):

helmer-speaks[Nuclear power is] a very reliable, clean way of producing a constant supply of energy and its fuel costs are much lower than conventional power generators. We can expect a new nuclear plant to operate two or three times as long as a gas-fired plant, and in all probability uranium prices will be much more stable than gas prices over the long term. And of course, the promise of nuclear power is immense. These reasons, amongst others, make nuclear power essential…

Curious to know more about nuclear power in the European Union? We’ve put together some facts and figures in the infographic below (click for a bigger version).

With the support of:


Who do YOU agree with on this issue?


Results for this issue

See the overall results

553 comments Post a commentcomment

What do YOU think?

  1. avatar
    Bobi Dochev

    Hell NO!!! There is nothing to replace it!
    You can’t replace nuclear energy with solar or wind so lets first start wit the Fossil Fuel Power plants and the coal one in particular!

    • avatar
      Matej Zaggy Zagorc

      They’re working on it. Trying to get a pipeline through Syria for the past 5 years :)

    • avatar
      Nikos Astroulakis

      Matej Zaggy Zagorc at the expense of Syrian people! Dont cry if you are the next ISIS bombing target

  2. avatar
    Borislav Valkov

    In short term No because fossil fuels are making much more problems but in long term Yes because radioactive waste creates problems…..

  3. avatar
    Александър Михайлов

    Hell no, and anyone who proposes such a thing should be exiled beyond the arctic circle and sentenced to only rely on wind and solar energy during the winter. We should be abandoning coal, gas, and other fossil fuel plants in favor of nuclear, and developing new nuclear reactors, safer, more efficient, along with new nuclear reactions that utilize our current waste as fuel and produce more stable isotopes or isotopes with shorter half-lifes before decaying into stable isotopes

    • avatar
      Nico DE

      “safer” 😂😂😂

  4. avatar
    JD Blaha

    In Hungary (and probably other former soviet socialist states) we have a nuke plant that was built by the USSR, and is now being renovated by the Russian state. The dependence on Russia is the issue here more than the safety issues.

    • avatar
      カメニャク マリオ

      Actually the UK has reverse engineered soviet reactor technologies. So the fact that Russia is doing the repairs is probably either due to Orban kind of liking Putin, or due to a cost benefit analysis.

    • avatar
      JD Blaha

      カメニャク マリオ this is a big question, actually. We were told before that there were no competitors to the contract – since then it has been discovered this was not true – transparency and corruption issues are big here. Also, this deal was made before Ukraine blew up and also nothing has been done since – and the currency fluctuations might make it impossible now. None of which has anything to do with the proper debate needed about safety!

    • avatar
      Bódis Kata

      I wish people who discussed nuclear technology had a frigging concept about it. I wish.

  5. avatar
    Roberto Patrone

    Iván Marsh Whateley I said reliable. no wind and solare are not relible. nor affordable. they also are not massive production energy as they are extensive and aleatory energy sources

    • avatar
      Ken Clymer

      Nuclear power isn’t a fossil fuel. Second it’s only cheaper if the land mass lends itself to it. Germany has the solar radiation of Anchorage Alaska. So it’s not practical. Wind is only practical in the north and despite what you may have heard, Germany is not 100% green energy. Nuclear power is CO2 neutral and the the risks involved are negligible.

    • avatar
      Iván Marsh Whateley

      Ken Clymer like it or not Germany will become 100% green because thay already signed Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz (Germany renewable Energy act) and for many days Germany has produced green energy. Since then nuclear power in Germany has been reduced from 30 % to 12%. Wind Power has doubled from 2010 to 2015. Now with solar power, wind energy, natural gas and hidropower all that sums 35% and that was in 2015, getting the 35% that they planned for 2017… so sorry pal… it looks it s practical. we didn t blackout with out nuclear I guess the last 7 years. or at least no one noticed. you just came like some years late.

    • avatar
      Ruslan Neshev

      And yet, the article doesn’t list those 30 countries. ;) I suspect it’s not EU member states considering the cost of just a single solar cell. My parents have a house running ENTIRELY on solar energy – which means no connection to the grid whatsoever. Let’s just say things don’t always (only in summer, actually) go smoothly + the necessity for accumulators (many!) to store the energy is absolute. And those don’t really come without an environmental impact…

  6. avatar
    Dragos-Ronald Rugescu

    It’s all nice and pear-shaped until you realize there is no way to go full solar and wind and cover the energy required to power the whole of Europe, in which case necessity calls on us to keep nuclear going and give up other more CO2-intensive energy generation plants (like coal). Being eco-friendly shouldn’t mean being eco-crazy to the depths of irrationality.

    Banning nuclear is the same as paralyzing Europe, it’s economy, and its people, for reasons entirely divorced from reason and science. Fukushima and Chernobyl were two extremes of carelessness not heard of in the EU. With proper procedures, maintenance and care, nuclear has the best safety+energy generation capacity of all known sources of energy save fusion which is decades away.

    Banning it would be a tremendous mistake akin to handicapping yourself by chopping off your leg because you “might” get cancer there. This is so ridiculous it shouldn’t even be debated.

    We shouldn’t even be having this “ban this” or “ban that” discussion. Europe should be more about inspiring, about giving a sense of direction rather than the marxist, divisive two-speeder bullshit it’s turning into.

    These days it seems as if someone absolutely desires us to go down the deep end of eco-marxist idiocy and there are no brakes on this train. So how about keep us out of it.

  7. avatar
    Goran Niksic

    How is that even up for debate?! Facts are sound on this matter: nuclear energy is the best option in terms of balance between energy supply and environmental impact. Everything else is unfounded prejudice and hysteria.

    • avatar
      Ken Clymer

      NO NO No! Just as valid.

    • avatar
      Jaime Martins

      Hum, Chernobyl and Fukushima is not enough.

    • avatar
      Dorian Jakov Štern-Vukotić

      Jaime Martins Correct. Cherbobyl and fukushima, having a total death count of less than 10 000, in the total lifetime of nuclear power generation is NOT ENOUGH reason to stop using nuclear.
      For comparison, coal kills millions per year, fossil fuels contribute to climate change, and renewables aren’t reliable yet.
      Energy poverty kills more than any of those.
      So, its either nuclear, fossil fuel, or energy poverty

  8. avatar
    カメニャク マリオ

    Not really. Not yet at least. Although nuclear power does carry a small risk of catastrophe, in normal operation it has the best ratio of cleanness, efficiency and output. We should move to green power, as in we should stop using fuel powered cars, stop using coal power plants which are just ecologically terrible even during normal operation, start using more renewable power sources. However nuclear power has it’s merits, and if anything it should be replaced with cold fusion power.

  9. avatar
    JD Blaha

    カメニャク マリオ this is a big question, actually. We were told before that there were no competitors to the contract – since then it has been discovered this was not true – transparency and corruption issues are big here. Also, this deal was made before Ukraine blew up and also nothing has been done since – and the currency fluctuations might make it impossible now. None of which has anything to do with the proper debate needed about safety!

  10. avatar
    Ilies Ioan-Alexandru

    Depends on how giid we get at taking care of waste. Right now its okai and only getting better and far more better than cernobyl times. Wind and solar are never going to produce enough and fossil ones polute to much

  11. avatar
    Miika Kautto

    There is reason why France produce less CO2 than Germany, they electricity production based on nuclear. Germany has used billions € to Energiewende, but results are poor.

  12. avatar
    Miika Kautto

    There is reason why France produce less CO2 than Germany, they electricity production based on nuclear. Germany has used billions € to Energiewende, but results are poor.

    • avatar
      Ken Clymer

      Yes Chernobyl and Fukushima the scare tactics of the uninformed. Chernobyl was old technology poorly built and Fukushima was poorly built on a fault. Gee I wonder what could go wrong. Germany has no fault lines and no earthquakes. Do you know what won’t work in Germany? Solar because we have the solar radiation of Anchorage Alaska. Wind only works in the north. Also setting up solar farms in politically unstable North Africa is a poor solution. France gets 85% of its power from nuclear. Not one bloody accident. All your solution will result in is more cost and not CO2. I pay 25 cents per kilowatt hour thanks to people like you so you can kiss my ass.

    • avatar
      Daniel Silva

      Ken Clymer Apart for being ignorant you’re also insulting to prove a point. Go educate your self. By the time we suffer a major nuclear accident it will be too late. As for the wind only working in the north you are dead wrong as my country already has it and has managed to run on renewable energy only, for a few days. So insulting people just proves how stupid you are. Pitiful…

    • avatar
      Ruslan Neshev

      There is also solar and wind there + a country like France, which has been producing around 70% of its electricity with nuclear power plants, still doesn’t have three-legged people walking around… BTW in order to switch to renewable we need to develop a super trouper excellent accumulator first! Achieve this and I will 100% support, especially in terms of solar.

  13. avatar
    Max Dohe

    It’s just a matter of matching supply and demand through dynamic organisational methods. Anyone opposing renewables is just lazy, and, in the long run, irrational.

    • avatar
      Paul X

      “matching supply and demand”……and there is the biggest drawback with renewables, so if you have a “dynamic organisational method” that can solve this issue then you could make yourself very rich by marketing it to the energy companies

      Meanwhile the renewable sector continues to seek an efficient solution to storing surplus energy when supply exceeds demand

  14. avatar
    Tim Nick Knight

    NO NO, the new Nuclear plants will be very very safe, and can not have the same problems, they will also run on old waste.

  15. avatar
    Jonathan Abela

    Some energy sources have a continuous toll on the environment (such as using fossil fuels) , whilst others have a very huge toll on the environment when something goes wrong (like what happened in Chernobyl and Fukushima

  16. avatar
    Ken Clymer

    Yes Chernobyl and Fukushima the scare tactics of the uninformed. Chernobyl was old technology poorly built and Fukushima was poorly built on a fault. Gee I wonder what could go wrong. Germany has no fault lines and no earthquakes. Do you know what won’t work in Germany? Solar because we have the solar radiation of Anchorage Alaska. Wind only works in the north. Also setting up solar farms in politically unstable North Africa is a poor solution. France gets 85% of its power from nuclear. Not one bloody accident. All your solution will result in is more cost and more CO2 emissions. I pay 25 cents per kilowatt hour thanks to people like you so you can kiss my ass.

  17. avatar
    Iván Marsh Whateley

    Ken Clymer and thats just because you said so…. right? So they dont have wind in the south right? Just in the north? how is that it s not practical in the south? what the fuck is that dude? please they dont have wind in the south or what?
    and what the fuck is that Deutschland has the solar radiation of Anchorage….? wtf man? you compering the radiation of Frieburg with the radiation recieved in Kiel for example? please hsorry you took me by a 10 year old kid but you will need better falacies than that with adults young man…hahahahahahahaha

  18. avatar
    Ivan Čorak

    Nope, if done right and built to highest safety standards, they are mostly safe. Fukushima was built on a location which, to put it lightly, was ill-advised as a place for a nuclear power plant, Chernobyl was the result of a russian error (or rather the inexperience of the night shift and asinine procedures undertaken by them). What we all should strive for however is nuclear power based on fusion which would be perfectly safe as it would be functionally impossible for a meltdown to occur (the superheated plasma would dissipate hermlessly in the event of a magnetic containment field failure). So, the agenda should be as follows: Fission+renewable in short term, fission/fusion+renewable in mid term, fusion and if needed renewable in the long term.

    • avatar
      Adil Ennaji

      impressive debating skills

    • avatar
      Adil Ennaji

      hahahahaha je trouvais ça tellement drôle comme commentaire eu égard au titre de l’article

    • avatar
      Lucas Michel

      Parfois je suis constructif. Aujourd’hui ce n’est pas le cas

  19. avatar
    Kuba Suder

    Absolutely not, we should abandon *coal* plants and finally build some nuclear ones.

  20. avatar
    Iván Marsh Whateley

    Ilies Ioan-Alexandru easy… hidroelectric power… and solar power doesn t work just in sunny days, terrible misconception. in a basic way, solar power works with photons. a photon that interacts with a voltaic cell. So you still have photons in a cloudy day, if not you would not see anything.
    and well is also a misconception that there are places with out wind, Go to the top of mountains where wind turbines are usually placed and you will see them working most of the days… you just have to find a wind stream. thats why many are palced in the sea by Vestas a Dannish wind power company.
    Roberto Patrone :
    I find more realiable this man than your opinion:
    Infrastructure and Development at the World Economic Forum. “Solar and wind have just become very competitive, and costs continue to fall. It is not only a commercially viable option, but an outright compelling investment opportunity with long-term, stable, inflation-protected returns.”
    my pleasure mates. cheers.

  21. avatar
    Roberto Patrone

    I don’t care what you find more reliable. physics, technology, and common sense are hard to fight. Hydro is the only so called green source that works. the rest wind and solar sources are completely different. You can’t rely on wind or sun, you also have very low efficiency and you have to cover big surface of shit to get the same installed power of a nuclear reactor. But… the installed power with these two sources isnot a correct indicator of the REAL ENERGY they can produce, instead the installed power of a nuclear plant IS a correct indicator. For every kwh you intend to produce from these kind of sources , you have to have an equivalent of kwh ready to start produced from standard reliable sources.

  22. avatar
    Adil Ennaji

    hahahahaha je trouvais ça tellement drôle comme commentaire eu égard au titre de l’article

  23. avatar
    Nikos Astroulakis

    Matej Zaggy Zagorc at the expense of Syrian people! Dont cry if you are the next ISIS bombing target, because West energy-hunger cause their surfacing

  24. avatar
    Nikos Astroulakis

    Of course not!! Instead of abandoning nuclear energy, try to upgrade reactors to minimize the risk of explosion and also build radioactive waste recycle facilities to minimize the risk of environmental pollution. This way, nuclear enegry can be both energy-efficient and environmentally friendly. Combine it with solar and wind energy, and start substituting fossil fuels (that are harmful to the environment no matter what)

  25. avatar
    Tony Petersen

    What good is a ban if the ban, if at all implemented, is not enforced?
    Here I am of course referring to Belgium – the European capital of Brussels – which stopped measuring particles certain places when thresholds were found to have been exceeded.

  26. avatar
    Sasha Naronin

    Yep, burn coal instead like Germany does. Or firewood. It’s considered “green” after all.

  27. avatar
    Kenneth Childers

    Personally, I’d rather see a nuclear accident like Fukishima every month or two than a third of our current land soon under water … The US has had about ten deaths ever from nuclear energy, mostly from Three Mile Island …

  28. avatar
    Vytautas Vėžys

    Yeah… Lets abandon safest, cleanest, cheapest power source human kind has…
    That’s why Union is failing: incompetent bureaucracy driven by opinions of incompetent people makes decisions worsening lives for everyone.

    • avatar
      Ruslan Neshev

      If your point is that nuclear power is poisoning the planet, I would suggest to look at Chernobyl and the fact that it has become a nature paradise. Nuclear power DOES have many drawbacks, but wind and solar have a huge environmental impact, as well. Just nobody talks about this “forbidden” and “inconvenient” fact. I will post an article below in a separate comment about wind power’s downsides. I’m sorry, but the world isn’t black and white.

  29. avatar
    Ulrich Westphal

    This is a most embarassing chapter for human intelligence ever. 160 years after the invention of the fuel cell, almost a century after Tesla… Profit over progress led to killing ourselfs and the indoctrination technics to spread bullshit are still advancing faster than the understanding of complex systems.
    God morning…or good night ?

    • avatar
      Ruslan Neshev

      I’ve studied some electrotechnics in the university and trust me when I say this, fuel cells and Tesla coils are far, FAR less efficient than the way popular media and sci-fi books depict them. And we also don’t have any reliable battery technology to keep all the energy from renewables. And their power output tends to be unpredictable, so you kind of need batteries.

  30. avatar
    Petros Papadimas

    If we can find alternative ways of producing massive power with such little cost then of course. Nuclear Fusion is Such a way , eco-friendly too but has a long way before applied commercially.

    • avatar
      Paweł Żuk

      Fusion actually produces large amounts of high level nuclear waste.

    • avatar
      Petros Papadimas

      Depends on the fusion, referring to the hydrogen fusion that produces Helium-4, which is actually stable thus no radiation emitting

    • avatar
      Paweł Żuk

      Petros Papadimas It *reduces* the problem, but doesn’t elliminate it since it still releases one high-energy proton per reaction. It’s not as bad for the reactor as plain D-T fusion, but it will still activate some equipment eventually, and there are side reactions that occur with it and still produce neutrons.

      Oh yeah and it requires helium-3 to boot :P

    • avatar
      Petros Papadimas

      Even if this is true, we simply cannot find any other way. Renewable energy is it is is not enough

  31. avatar
    Darrell Mennie

    Nuclear Power has a bad rap. divest from coal and oil and gas and develop better containment and disposal tech.

  32. avatar
    Domenico Galardo

    Total crazy. Nuclear Power is the future, otherwise we will back in pre-industrial age or something like that.

    • avatar
      Nuno Oliveira

      Shocking, but there are developed countries without nuclear.

  33. avatar
    John Andreu

    Solar will become the best and cheapest form of Energy on Earth. It’s not if but when. Every year it becomes cheaper and more efficient .
    and in can be used locally without expensive infrastructures .
    Solar will become the best and cheapest form of Energy on Earth. It’s not if but when. Every year it becomes cheaper and more efficient . C

    • avatar
      Domenico Galardo

      You know ? Sun is powered by nuclear reactions…….

    • avatar
      John Andreu

      Yes it’s a much more powerful reactor than anything we can make.

    • avatar
      Ruslan Neshev

      In which way does enforcing a decision on member states differ from a dictatorship? I agree, a central authority is necessary, but telling poorer countries how they should sacrifice their people’s salaries and pensions to satisfy a EU decision is a liiittle bit over the line. And I’m sorry, but nuclear is still far more cost-efficient than renewable energy. Nevertheless, for the sake of honesty, I’ll admit that fossil fuels are also more cost-efficient than nuclear power.

  34. avatar
    Belamie Versco

    Switching off some big energy consumers and lowering energy consumption altogether should be part of the solution too! The West is living with a luxurious overload of energy toys ;)

  35. avatar
    Ruslan Neshev

    So nuclear power has an environmental impact, I agree. But the world is not black and white and here’s a little info about wind power’s downsides. Additionally, I don’t think it’s fair that everybody talks about the one, but not the other. If you want to make a point about the environment you shouldn’t just neglect the inconvenient facts. So here’s one – Cost-efficiency: renewable < nuclear < fossil fuels. THAT is why we haven't switched from fossil to nuclear and now you want to go even further to renewable. I'm sorry to say this, but it is physically impossible. As in the laws of physics prohibit it and those aren't exactly easy to break…

  36. avatar
    Paweł Kunio

    Nope. If You want to stay clear of coal-based pollution and/or wanna go for electric cars etc, nuclear is the only way forward.

    • avatar
      Nando Aidos

      Your assertions are based on what?

  37. avatar
    Ruslan Neshev

    If you really want to save the planet, you first need a battery. So I would instead propose a reward be granted to anyone who manages to come up with an efficient way to store electrical energy. And I’m talking on the order of tens of millions of euros, possibly up to a hundred million. THIS is how you can switch completely over to renewable and THIS is how you can make electric vehicles market competitive!

  38. avatar
    Ferenczi István

    We should phase it out. And invest in cleaner sources. And should start with less consumption and higher efficiency so that we don’t have to produce such large amounts.

    • avatar
      Wouter Russchen

      cleaner? it’s one of the cleanest sources of energy. solar cells and windturbines have a huge enviromental cost in terms of production. Nuclear has killed about a few hundred people in total. pollution due to solar energy has killed thousands.

    • avatar
      Ferenczi István

      All industrial production has some environmental cost, yes. But come on, tell me about the long term storage of spent fuel and tell me about the consequences of human error. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima just to name a few.

    • avatar
      Paweł Żuk

      Spent fuel can be reprocessed and is a comparatively small amount of material to handle (the total amount of ALL nuclear waste produced in the UK, ever, is 5 million tons – something that a single coal fired power plant will match in ten years)

      And the Chernobyl exclusion zone is no more contaminated than many Chinese mining towns – the only reason people don’t live there is because they freak out about radiation.

      Oh, and you didn’t name “a few” – you named nearly ALL of the worst nuclear accidents in history :D

      Short list, eh?

    • avatar
      Wouter Russchen

      why? we’ve had 70 years of peace because of it and we have unprecidented wealth.

  39. avatar
    Stefania Portici

    noi abbiamo espresso con 2 referendum il nostro NO al nucleare ,non ne abbiamo, il nostro territorio è a rischio sismico . I Paesi che non hanno il problema del terremoto facciano come vogliono. we have expressed our second referendum NO to nuclear power, we have not, our region is prone to earthquakes. Countries that do not have the problem of the earthquake do as they wish.

  40. avatar
    Stefania Portici

    noi abbiamo espresso con 2 referendum il nostro NO al nucleare ,non ne abbiamo, il nostro territorio è a rischio sismico . I Paesi che non hanno il problema del terremoto facciano come vogliono. we have expressed our second referendum NO to nuclear power, we have not, our region is prone to earthquakes. Countries that do not have the problem of the earthquake do as they wish.

  41. avatar
    Zisis Adamos

    Why not change the type of reactors used to generate nuclear power? Using LTFR reactors for example!

  42. avatar
    EU Reform- Proactive

    This is on ongoing debate. Energy choices remain national decisions- not made by the EU. Every country has & will use their “comparative advantage”. Opinions & emotions run deep and raging like an out of control nuclear reactor. The DE boasts having 4 similar debates since 2011- and its final conclusions were?

    I counted ~10 nuclear POWER plant accidents since 1957 with <100 direct fatalities. However, indirect death’s may run into a million. Seen in context- one needs to look & compare all roads, general & self inflicted fatalities. Be it by choosing an unhealthy lifestyle (smoking, drinking & wrong diet) or other bad choices. Life in general is risky- getting riskier.

    Unfortunately, one hears too little from scientists or comparable statistics- instead too much from EU politician’s. Why target & kill off ONE (evolving nuclear) energy source completely? Why not slaughter all cows as well, eat vegetables only to reduce Methane which is 23 times higher than the effect of CO2?

    Why not consider first the many emerging futuristic technologies to produce, reduce and dilute the spread of energy consumption- by selecting suitable & viable solutions for small to medium users?


    Bold policy decisions have been taken by countries like e.g. Germany (phasing out nuclear by 2022) Switzerland (in stages from 2019-2035) while Asia is adding more nuclear- China alone has 20 plants under construction. Who will win the race to produce the cheapest, least polluting energy in future and gain an economical competitive edge? Europe, Asia or the US? What will the future energy mix be? Many of today’s common usages like Petrol/diesel cars will disappear after 2030 & replaced by battery powered cars & mostly driver less, etc.


    The public will always complain & demonstrate, being against nuclear, coal fired, the ugly wind mills, the dangerous pipelines, the high mast transition lines, or the hectares of PV panels spoiling the country side.

    One can trust that innovation, science, economy of scale & competition will bulldoze politics to adopt sensible- not popular- choices in future.

  43. avatar
    Andrea Berni

    Bullshit. The eu was born in 1992. Peacetime was achieved thanks to the common wisdom of our governments, not the eu itself.

  44. avatar
    Oskar Podstawka

    yeah, right. and return to fantastically sustainable fossil fuels. to be honest for now any other energy source can barely really compete with nuclear power.

    • avatar
      Josep Barceló

      Well, in Spain we have a special tax for solar energy, meant to ensure that coal centrals remain profitable.

    • avatar
      Josep Barceló

      Gustavo Pedro Ricou. Because it’s dangerous and it can be substituted by renewable energies. Mainly solar.

    • avatar
      Josep Barceló

      Nowadays it’s a matter of political determination. The necessary technologies are already at our disposal.

    • avatar
      Peter Henry Stephenson

      Let’s abandon houses and return to caves, and be green again !!! Oil is the basic resource dude, what are you talking about ?

  45. avatar
    Rosy Forlenza

    I think it should phased out as we phase in green energy, look at the state of the pacific ocean now, once its contaminated like this (and the irish sea thanks to sellafield (previously windscale – big accident), it is contaminated for a very long time. It is time to put a plan to time scale to phase it out and phase in green energy

  46. avatar
    Gustavo Pedro Ricou

    Anyone that says we should simply does not understand the threat of global warming. Any source that reduces our carbon emissions is a good source.

    • avatar
      Josep Barceló

      However, it’s not that clear that nuclear energy reduces carbon emissions, since nuclear waste has to be handled for tens of thousands of years.

    • avatar
      Gustavo Pedro Ricou

      Josep Barceló Of course it does. Nuclear waste does not release carbon. And it is not even close to tens of thousands of years, Nuclear waste is being dropped in the ocean and that is a problem. But Climate Change is the end of the world, literally.

  47. avatar
    Gustavo Pedro Ricou

    Josep Barceló Of course it does. Nuclear waste does not release carbon. And it is not even close to tens of thousands of years, Nuclear waste is being dropped in the ocean and that is a problem. But Climate Change is the end of the world, literally.

    • avatar
      Adam Błażowski

      Shutting down reactors leads to increase in CO2 emissions in energy mix.

    • avatar
      Adam Błażowski

      This is why Swiss voted NO to premature nuclear shutdown

    • avatar
      Adam Lesniak

      Which one? At the moment there is no. Solar and wind are close. But we won’t scale them fast enough. Turning off nuclear now means burning more fossil fuels and more pollution in air you and I and children around us are breathing!

  48. avatar
    Andre Lopes

    you should know why we Portuguese don´t want Almaraz operating anymore. Too many “accidents” and it´s out of date, more than 30 years, yet they still want to extend to more 40 years, it´s insane, how can´t you President of the European Parliament can´t see what is going on here. Plus we have a pretty dirty Tagus river, very poluted plus, a nuclear reactor to show up on the news once a year with a new akward accident. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-17-320_pt.htm

    And you through this to politicians…. So i´m just here waiting to something to happen someday, whatelse, who cares. Nuclear is man playing god….. power. meh.

    • avatar
      Oli Lau

      Yes they are that stupid. That is the scary thing about them.

  49. avatar
    Adam Lesniak

    Nuclear is very expensive to build but if already build – for love of health of your children – do not turn it off. It will be replaced by coal annd/or natural gas. Millions of people have health problems because of burning fossil fuels. Do not turn of nuclear if you don’t want people to die.

  50. avatar
    Patryk Aleksander Kostrzewa

    Oli Lau Suppose you’re right. We should probably triple the public education expenditures. But for now, it seems somewhat impossible. Take for example Orban or Kaczyński or Le Pen. They want stupid Europe, so more people can believe their bullshit :-(

  51. avatar
    Kester Ratcliff

    Obviously that would be a stupid idea. No other energy tech that exists yet or is likely to be developed soon enough can substitute for enough coal usage fast enough to prevent us killing ourselves and most other life on earth. Small modular designs are more efficient and lower risk. Thorium instead of uranium reactors cannot produce any material that can possibly be diverted into weapons.

  52. avatar
    Ruslan Neshev

    OK so I’ve got a quick question. If a man or woman receives radiation from a nuclear accident and then dies at the age of 80 or more (there are such cases from Chernobyl), why does it still count in the statistics as a “nuclear-related” death?!?! I mean couldn’t the fact that this person lived to 80 have a little more to do with their death? And by the way, seeing how everyone is screaming about cancer, as a bimedical student I can tell you the most important factor contributing to cancer is age. So if someone gets cancer 10-20 years after a nuclear accident, you can blame time for that. If they actually got cancer from the radiation, it wouldn’t wait this long to kill them. 5 years tops and they’d kick the bucket…

  53. avatar
    Damien Micallef

    War is an inebility of inaccurate approach to circumstance by afflictive views.
    peace is the approach of someone for others.
    Different views of others cause war.
    Accepting others s approaches paradox wars, in unending conflict of for oneself vs others.
    Illustrated by Sophie hadara becoming Kim kardashian by barrack Obama trying peaceful resolution earthed bin Ladens prayers and hopes for his family at the same time knowing the al queda network

  54. avatar
    Paweł Żuk

    Russia is one of the largest producers of uranium AND nuclear reactors as well :P

  55. avatar
    Paweł Żuk

    Petros Papadimas I know, but it helps to be realistic about the costs and benefits involved. Fusion won’t sidestep the problem of storing nuclear waste and its associated political baggage, and if we pretend that it will, we’re setting ourselves up for an eventual wave of rage that will lead to reactionary energy policy decisions.

  56. avatar
    Chris Szitovszky

    ‘Oh yeah and it requires helium-3 to boot :P’

    Then again, this would be a good excuse to increase our space program investment. There’s he-3 on the Moon for example.

  57. avatar
    Paweł Żuk

    Yeah but it means even more lead time to get significant infrastructure going, since the concentrations are like 10 parts per billion.

    Climate change won’t wait until we get *that* operation going :P

  58. avatar
    Paweł Żuk

    Hey, if I knew of a way to convince people to fund fusion research, massive space infrastructure AND wide scale deployment of fission power, I’d be giving speeches in Brussels right now :P

  59. avatar

    Yes we should phase out nuclear power, so no new plants anymore & define an absolute end date for each existing plant. So we can buy time to:
    > Schedule & implement enough renewable energy sources to replace coal & nuclear power sources.
    > Schedule & build an intelligent European power distribution network.
    Such a power distribution network is indispensable to bring the power from a zillion producers of different kinds to another zillion consumers of different types while providing enough buffer capability in order to cope with peaks in consumption

  60. avatar
    Ishan Mavani

    No. This is because there is nothing more efficient to replace it. Nuclear power may be bad for the environment but it is fast, reliable and easy to do. In the future we could cut down on it a bit but we should not stop using it. If there is an Eco friendly energy source that is as reliable to replace it then go ahead but there is not.

  61. avatar
    Александър Михайлов

    Nuclear power is the way to go, we should be working to advance that. And anyone who proposes abandoning nuclear power should be exiled north of the arctic circle and sentenced to only rely on solar and wind power during the long winter nights

  62. avatar
    Zé Miranda

    No. Nuclear power is one of the best options to produce energy, only people that have fallen victim to the green propaganda think otherwise. I have actually studied and the only big problem is that most countries can’t afford the huge investment but those who can should probably consider it as the second top option after hydroelectric generation.

  63. avatar
    Belamie Versco

    Nuclear plants close to borders of countries without nuclear power seem to be a problem…. perhaps some EU wide regulation would help there.

  64. avatar
    George Diplas

    Main article: Nuclear safety
    Nuclear safety covers the actions taken to prevent nuclear and radiation accidents or to limit their consequences. The nuclear power industry has improved the safety and performance of reactors, and has proposed new safer (but generally untested) reactor designs but there is no guarantee that the reactors will be designed, built and operated correctly.[33]Mistakes do occur and the designers of reactors at Fukushima in Japan did not anticipate that a tsunami generated by an earthquake would disable the backup systems that were supposed to stabilize the reactor after the earthquake,[34] despite multiple warnings by the NRG and the Japanese nuclear safety administration.[citation needed] According to UBS AG, theFukushima I nuclear accidents have cast doubt on whether even an advanced economy like Japan can master nuclear safety.[35] Catastrophic scenarios involving terrorist attacks are also conceivable.[33] An interdisciplinary team from MIT has estimated that given the expected growth of nuclear power from 2005–2055, at least four serious nuclear accidents would be expected in that period.[36]

  65. avatar
    Mattias Reee

    I believe that nuclear power is a solid energy source. It produces a lot of energy in relation to other energy sources. Sure it might not be the optimal source for humanity, but currently it is a very good choise actually. The hysteria regarding Japan’s issues with nuclear power is not relevant in Europe due to our geographical location. Japan is situated in a geographical location that regularly experiences nature disasters. Take for example northern Europe. How often do they experience heavy earthquakes and tsunamis? It never happens and that is why the hysteria is completely illogical. The only time it was a problem in Europe during the Chernobyl disaster. This is in total 1 issue with nuclear power in Europe. Not to mention it was almost 30 years ago in a communist nation that had nowhere near our current technology.

    But let’s hypothetically say that we agreed with the radiophobics and remove all nuclear energy, what would we replace it with? Fossil fuels that actually have a very serious consequences on our environment. Not to mention we will most likely have to import it from Russia which will result in them having even greater impact in Europe. It is also not an energy source that will be permanently available to us. If we look at Sweden again we already have to import energy from other countries while deciding that we have to take down our nuclear power plants. This is total insanity and is going to only make the environment worse while the politicians look like heroes for uninformed citizens.

    If the utopia one day exists where there are more effective and cheaper energy sources than nuclear energy I would be more than happy to make the change to it. But that day is not today and we have to be realistic.

  66. avatar
    Любомир Иванчев

    Ridiculous and populist question. There is no adequate alternative to nuclear power yet. Green energy is very far from having the necessary capacity to satisfy the energy needs of all Europe and fossil fuels will simply destroy the environment. Not to mention nuclear power has superior cost-efficiency to both.

  67. avatar

    No nuclear power, reduce CO2 emissions and invest only in renewable energy when it comes to energy production.

    Also every gym could produce electricity when people go there to spend energy.

  68. avatar

    Europe should stand against nuclear energy. Funny how we call ourselves a civilized people while we still use nuclear energy and other stuff that slowly or quickly kill our planet. Those of you who are for nuclear energy surely have never been affected by a major accident. Men need to understand that nuke is obsolete, dangerous, uncontrolled and that the risk is too high, plus damages are irreversible…get informed, scientist already have alternatives for gas and nuke but governements owned by big companies do not want to invest in a greener energy. Most of our politicians are just puppets. Once the earth is contamined , then it will be too late. No need to cry then, you´ve been warned. Think about your children please.

    • avatar
      Александър Михайлов

      That is exactly what they will achieve if they attempt to abandon nuclear power and do not attempt to advance other fission reactions and nuclear fusion

    • avatar
      カメニャク マリオ

      Coal power plants are even more environment unfriendly than nuclear ones during normal operation.

    • avatar
      Paulius Paždagis

      Michail Panchev Yes, bring stomping pads too that generates energy, so people could stomp on them…

  69. avatar
    Bódis Kata

    Nonsense. That would be an economic disaster. Electric energy is already relatively expensive in the EU and that’s a key competitive disadvantage.

    Ps: The electric energy demand in the EU continues to increase and we will need ~50 new electric works within ~20 years. Or you can kiss goodbye to much of the industry and jobs.

    • avatar
      Mário Lobo

      you can never just let go of fossil fuels, not until you find a way to store big quantities of energy.

  70. avatar
    Paulius Paždagis

    NP’s should only be built on none living areas, like deserts. And definitely not close to the ocean. NP’s are safe generally, but in a situation of an accident, the consequences may be terrible.

  71. avatar
    Bobi Dochev

    Only a complete idiot can ask such dumb question (not that EU is not full of idiots)..! 40% German’s energy still come from Fossil power plants if you think they are safer for your health – go one! Or plan be – we all going back at the caves waiting the evolution to create some intelligent humanoids. Damn shit!

  72. avatar
    Dimitar Peev

    This will be very unreasonable decision. At this moment this is most powerfull, reliable and secure energy source.

  73. avatar
    Imanuel d'Anjou

    eventually, yeah. but let’s not forget that coal power is not only still used in the union, but even being invested in. so i think debating nuclear is getting ahead of ourselves really

  74. avatar
    Esther Huhn

    we have long coastlines, we have long rivers and mountains, we have no excuse to continue with nuclear energy

  75. avatar
    Marian Rodu

    Abandoning nuclear power at this stage is EXTREMELY stupid and will only increase fossil fuel consumption and dependency. Producing renewable energy and storing it is not yet efficient enough and fusion reactors are decades off.

  76. avatar
    João Roque

    I’ve never seen a compelling reason why we shouldn’t use nuclear power, specially since the new power plant designs

  77. avatar
    Jon Apd

    As long as you don’t put a nuclear power plant on a fault line in an earthquake prone area next to the sea in the country that the word tsunami came from, you’re ok. Fukushima could’ve been avoided.

    • avatar
      Breogán Costa

      sadly, renewable energies are still not enough

  78. avatar
    Breogán Costa

    Of course not (yet).
    It’s dangerous, but I personally prefer nuclear fission energy than coal or petrol based ones (that ones are killing our planet and ourselves).
    Also, a lot of research is being done about how to recycle nuclear waste (at CERN, University of Manchester and other prestigious organisations), and increasing the safety measures in nuclear plants, once we can completely recycle the waste, should not be a big problem to keep nuclear fission based plants while we don’t completely move to safer alternatives, clean energy, fusion, etc.
    What I will do:
    – try to reduce consumption (educate users, companies, set rules about optimisations in electronic devices and to perform energy saving operational modes in software -too many people keep their office computers on when they go home),
    – improve clean energies, but do it without a big impact in nature (it looks wind turbines do many times, they don’t care about the negative impact of installing them in some areas, producing a lot of problems there -I should read more about this),
    – ban countries from banning/put obstacles to clean energy (like S-pain, where the stupid Gov. even put a stupid tax to the Sun, loosing the potential dominant position in that sector -now Germany produces more solar energy than Spain, just crazy)… they reduced the investments in solar panels and clean energy in general research, loosing the position also in those sectors, as I said,
    – improve public transport and its usage, update to electric one when possible,
    – ban coal and limit the usage of petrol and gas as much as possible (heating systems would be a problem nowadays, but start replacing even them by new technologies),
    – invest more, much more, in energy research (clean energies, fusion, maybe new ones),
    – try to limit nuclear fission, and the one that should be generated, try to do it in the safest way.


  79. avatar
    Troels Halken

    Nuclear offers the cheapest reduction in co2 emissions and with a very low impact on nature. 4 gen reactors will be even better. But EU (and US) is lacking behind China. The EU should make research and development of molten salt reactors and thorium a must win battle in the energy sector. Or when we realize that wind+solar+storage is too expensive, we will have to buy the molten salt reactors from China. China is pursuing to master multiple/all technologies in nuclear, and EU should do the same.
    At the same time we should build more nuclear power stations and EU should recognize that power made with nuclear emits no co2 and are liable for subsidies meant for RE sources, and promote it strongly.

  80. avatar
    Ștefan Alexandru

    I vote ALDE’s position. We should definitely, but progressively and with mind. Either the question was misconstrued or they’re all nut tree huggers. Of course we should go renewable energy, like, let’s try not to close the nuclear plants until we have the grid set and some nice batteries? The questions sounds like they wanna shut it down now, ban it right now.

  81. avatar
    Lonzo Bildelberg

    like it or not nuclear power is the only source of energy that can allow us to continue our industrial society AND reduce CO2 emissions. If anything we should increase the number of nuclear power plants, to shut down coal and diesel ones

    and no solar and wind cannot sustain the whole weight of our consumption, they are too unreliable, they can be fine if you want to power up to 5% of the grid but over that and you’ll end up like germany, that a few days ago had to import electricity because the hot weather decreased solar panel efficiency

  82. avatar
    Andrea Brown

    Simple answer is no. It is bad enough having to rely on unstable countries to import hydrocarbons from, without making it worse.

  83. avatar
    Christofer Catilan

    If we want to become the new undeveloped continent “back to basics” then it is absolutely necessary to abandon nuclear power :-)

    But if we prefer reason, welfare and continued development we have to rely on nuclear power and wait for newer nuclear technologies which facilitates even the use of today’s nuclear waste products as fuel. It could largely solve the problem of storing such waste products and this new reactor type is much safer with no risk for a hazardous meltdown.

    And next technical achievement is perhaps a fusion power plant.

  84. avatar
    Christofer Catilan

    If we want to become the new undeveloped continent “back to basics” then it is absolutely necessary to abandon nuclear power :-)

    But if we prefer reason, welfare and continued development we have to rely on nuclear power and wait for newer nuclear technologies which facilitates even the use of today’s nuclear waste products as fuel. It could largely solve the problem of storing such waste products and this new reactor type is much safer with no risk for a hazardous meltdown.

    And the next technical achievement is perhaps a fusion power plant.

  85. avatar
    Julia Hadjikyriacou

    Yes, of course. Why endanger people and the planet when there is green energy? Although Turkey is building one and that could destroy us anyway…

    • avatar
      Sorin Costea

      Educate yourself. The most clean and safe energy and reliable is nuclear energy.

    • avatar
      Julia Hadjikyriacou

      Look at evidence of chernobyl and fukishima. Ignore it at the peril of humanity.

    • avatar
      Παυλος Χαραλαμπους

      Sorin Costea can you curranty that earthquakes won’t happen? Floods? Can you be sure that in case of war those plants won’t be targeted? Or even won’t be hit by mistake ( a stray artillery shell for example- what more common in war) even a simple random mistake can blow thinks up…. What technicians are usually say is that” we learn throw our mistakes ” or just try&error..you really think we should play that game with nuclear reactors?

  86. avatar
    Maricela Potoc

    We should not abandon it, but get to an agreement on how we are allowed to use it(for science and for energy, not for war and destruction).

  87. avatar
    Thodoris Karamourat

    Basically nuclear power is the most eco-friendly source of power! So I think that all European countries must build a nuclear factory!

  88. avatar
    Yannick Cornet

    Complex issues usually require more than just yes/no answers. I would not support a switch for powering the french tgv from nuclear to fossil fuels. But lets be clear: both options break sustainability principles, and therefore plans to abandon and transition away from both methods of producing electricity should be in place.

  89. avatar
    Tatiana Romanova

    EU MUST abandon nuclear power! There are soooo many other eco-friendly ways to have power. (Look what Norway does for example)

    • avatar
      Francesco Dondi

      Look at what a country with more rivers than people does? Hidroelecricity is already used at 90%, and in most cases isn’t nearly enough. Norway is the exception.

    • avatar
      Tatiana Romanova

      Solar panels in the deserts, hydroelectricity, wind….. we can use them all according to the area.

  90. avatar
    Pablo Ribera Payá

    Between 2013 and 2014, 103 GW of renewable energy were installed in the world. Equivalent to the whole 158 nuclear reactors in the US roughly. Nuclear Fission Power, save for military reasons, is the past, not the future.

    Just check the hiking costs of the foreseen plant in the UK.

    The future is renewables and fusion power.

  91. avatar
    Fernando De Rojas Parets

    Yes, is not a matter of numbers, is a matter of future. Green energies are posible and a claim. We need a change in critical moments.

  92. avatar
    Francesco Iapicca

    as soon as nuclear fusion is ready and you can make rid of arabian/russian/us oil… sure
    in the mean time you can just invest in solar and wind power, instead of “abandon” carbon free solutions

  93. avatar
    Arthur Gustin

    How would you do without them ?

    I mean we need to invest in alternative energies but we’re constantly consuming more electricity, it’s impossible to catch up with only green methods.
    Eventhough, nuclear power plant don’t pollute, the waste of radioactive material does !

  94. avatar
    Daniel Meternă

    No until develop the fusion or the hydrogen obtained from simple water as product of propulsion. Electric car IS NOT a solution!

  95. avatar
    Saul Crucero

    NO, it is the only guarantee from being BLACKMAILED by the Nuclear powers or even Terrorists. The world has become too evil that the only language they know is brute force and military power. Diplomacy is only a password when it is convenient to postpone hard decisions.

    • avatar
      Boyko Vesselinov

      Sorry, I don’t like getting money for doing nothing 😂

  96. avatar
    Julia Hadjikyriacou

    Turkey is putting Greece and Cyprus in danger with their new Russian Nuclear power plant being built. Plus does the EU even trust Turkey with nuclear knowledge?

    • avatar
      Ivan Burrows

      So is Brussels by ‘allowing’ the German/Russian nord stream 2 pipeline project. But its Germany so that’s ok.

  97. avatar
    Jovan Ivosevic

    Renewables are doubling in capacity every two years. In 15 years that’s a possibility. Until then phasing out nuclear means carbon emitting replacements like methane coal oil etc.

  98. avatar
    Carl Sebastian Steenekamp

    I support nuclear for military use in case a country is in huge danger or a foreign power puts the country in danger. But for electricity use? No, it is too expensive and non-renewable. For electricity we need to use renewable energy, as it is much cheaper.

  99. avatar
    Hitaj Iliev Nikola Sabina

    from humanity rights Point of view and earth safety and green Projects — yes but the full Agreements should be on a full planet compliance with Agreements…… AT THE END THE NUCLEAR WAR IS BASED EXCATELLY ON THE BIZNESS AND MUCH RICH EMPOWERING PROJECTS FROM SUCH BISSNES……. IS IT POSSIBLE AT THIS STEP OF TERRITORIALY DIVIZIONS OF THE WORLD ????

  100. avatar
    Hitaj Iliev Nikola Sabina


  101. avatar
    Matej Mlinarič

    What happened in Japan was because of tectonic plates. Since Eurasian plate consists of whole Europe we are safe as we could possibly be to avoid such scenario as it happened in Japan.


  102. avatar
    Michał Borkowski

    There is no reasons to abandon nuclear energy in the short run as it is more effective than renewables and more green than coal, nevertheless greens are the future and have a few advantages over nuclear plants: renewables are more decentralized, easier to build/dismantle, don’t pose serious environmental threat and do not require waste disposal procedures

  103. avatar
    Katerina Mpakirtzi

    And Russia. And Iran? How we can live without power? No. These criminals savages threatened western christians daily

  104. avatar
    Paulo Guerreiro

    A BIG YES on this one. It’s unsafe (and yes, I know statistics say otherwise). Consider eolic, biomass, solar, etc until fission and zero point comes (this last one in a far future). Start with the older ones, with older core reactors, and with additional malfunction risks. (like Almaraz in Spain for example)

    • avatar
      André Alves Figueiredo

      Just curious, if statistics say otherwise, why do you state they’re dangerous ?

    • avatar
      Paulo Guerreiro

      Statistics are numbers, real world and real world events are much more (when human lives are at stake), there is an immense array of variables to consider. , Imagine a chernobyl event in ..say… Belgium, how many countries would be (deeply) affected for many years to come ? Is there a need to gamble with this matter ? with so many viable alternatives ?!

    • avatar
      Diogo Santos Teixeira

      The same argument can be made for plane travelling, I assume that doesn’t deter you from flying.
      One incident over 30 years ago isn’t good enough argument against nuclear power. It’s not unsafe if properly dealt with. A nuclear power station is not a gamble.
      Besides, CURRENT, viable alternatives are coal and natural gas. Renewables are not wide-implemented enough.

    • avatar
      André Alves Figueiredo

      Diogo Santos Teixeira was thinking exactly the same ! (Plane travelling)
      Pedro Guerreiro statistics are indeed Numbers, but they are derived from real World events ! I understand your concerns, but I don’t think your argument applies

    • avatar
      Paulo Guerreiro

      Diogo Santos Teixeira and André Teixeira. The air plane example also crossed my mind. And the fact is, when it happens the rescue team spend weeks scrapping people out of some area. My point of view is based (just) in a order of magnitude. Imagine a solar power plant critical fail, causalities ? perhaps none or close to none, imagine a nuclear power plant critical fail ….causalities ? with certain with greater impact to the environment and human communities..

    • avatar
      Paulo Guerreiro

      Then again, I also understand your point of view, and it doesn’t make any one of us defender of a radical position. But I do believe that risk and alternatives must be taken into serious account. Probably the best solution is the one that is proper adequate for the region of influence. In a way, this may validate the use of nuclear in certain situations. As a first rule of thumb ! I would say Yes, abandon nuclear power if possible.

  105. avatar
    Vytautas Vėžys

    Abandon cleanest, most efficient and cheapest energy source?
    Why not…
    Seriously, who comes with these stupid suggestions?

    • avatar
      Ēriks Gasiņš

      Its not the cleanest, but it is the most efficient yes.

    • avatar
      Rares Lucian

      Libtards most probably. :D

  106. avatar
    Bódis Kata

    From where are we supposed to get cheap energy then? Energy is already relatively expensive in the EU, it’s a main competitive disadvantage.
    Do you want to get rid of half the jobs in industry?

    • avatar
      Francesco Di Lecce

      1) without nuclear energy, two possibilities could happen: or european continent will be the most air-polluted region in the world or we will come back to use candles xD

    • avatar
      Francesco Di Lecce

      2) decommissioning of a Nuclear Power Plan means lots of job positions :P

  107. avatar
    Andrea Brown

    No, older reactors should be replaced with new modern reactors and research in ITER should be accelerated.

  108. avatar
    Ēriks Gasiņš

    No, we should improve the safety of nuclear stations, and governments should higher nuclear scientists to educate society about this stuff, because people are scared of nuclear energy for all the wrong reasons.

  109. avatar
    Bart Van Damme

    Renewables are currently not even close to meeting our energy demands, let alone in a reliable and continuous way (e.g. on days without wind your wind mills are doing jack). I believe the furture is in localized “micro”-power generation, where each home will provide much, if not all, of its own energy supply through a combination of sustainable methods. These will not only be a small windmill or panels on the roof, but will also include things like photovoltaic paint or transparent solar cells in the windows.

    Until then, however, we need a source of power that is stable and plentiful. Which means either fossil or nuclear. And of those options, nuclear is by far the best option. Not even a contest. It is relatively clean and very, very safe. Fukushima was a crap and ancient design which actually managed to survive one of the biggest earthquakes ever recorded. Had the generators been placed a bit better (i.e. had they not been flooded), it is likely we would never have even heard of the place. Replace older plants with newer plants and we’re good.

    Eco warriors should be all for nuclear, not against it.

  110. avatar
    Cris Hova

    definitely NO! Nuclear power is the most advanced way to get energy and quite the safest ( if the requirements to keep is safe are respected)! So, let s invest in nuclear power at least until we can use fusion power!:D

  111. avatar
    Craig Willy

    Depends on how much we care about tackling climate change. France’s carbon emissions per capita are almost *half* those of Germany (source: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC ). This is in large part because about 80% of French electricity is made through nuclear power, while German is still overwhelmingly dependent on fossil fuels like coal and gas (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#Coal_power ).

    Renewable sources of energy like wind and solar are good and very fashionable, but there is no way they can in the short or even medium term completely pick up the slack from fossil-fuel-based electric plants, let alone *increase* electricity produce to provide for, say, the electric cars needed to get ride of oil-based ones.

    If we really care about climate, we should stick to nuclear, at least until renewables can make up for it. I recognize there is a big safety risk with nuclear power – thinks are fine until there is an accident, like Fukushima or Chernobyl. The question then is: Is the elimination of risk by stopping nuclear power immediately worth the increase in carbon emissions this would result in, insofar as would (like Germany) had to resort to more fossil fuels?

  112. avatar
    George Frehden

    Interesting question! To Abandon nuclear power in Europe the world is not more safe and the life is not better without n.p.. So answer is No!

  113. avatar
    Jez Boulton

    Europe is today sitting under a radioactive cloud originating in Russia. Harmless though so the authorities say. Let’s hope so

  114. avatar
    Jez Boulton

    Europe is today sitting under a radioactive cloud originating in Russia. Harmless though so the authorities say. Let’s hope so

  115. avatar
    Jez Boulton

    Europe is today sitting under a radioactive cloud originating in Russia. Harmless though so the authorities say. Let’s hope so

  116. avatar
    Jez Boulton

    Europe is today sitting under a radioactive cloud originating in Russia. Harmless though so the authorities say. Let’s hope so

  117. avatar
    Liri Kodhelaj

    No just the EU. All other countries that have developed nuclear power should do the same.

  118. avatar
    Adrian Radu

    No, because it’s the greenest energy source and there is no other reliable alternative except for coal.

  119. avatar
    Emrah Can

    Europe should invest in molten salt reactors , abandoning nuclear power is not a good idea because of energy demand . :)

  120. avatar
    Dimitris Orfanoudis

    Its true that nuclear energy is clean energy.. However lately many countries have intented a lot to the renewable sources of energy some countriew like Sweden, Germany. Norway cover more thant 95% of energy of alternative sources ..

    • avatar

      but it has become more expensive than wind power. So there’s also that to take into consideration.

    • avatar

      winpower also have some downs: they kill big birds and affect the ecosystem. There is no perfect source.

  121. avatar
    Man Von

    Not yet, as the german example proves that the consequences of an abandon of the nuclear power is a compensation of this by Coal and gaz. What is more urgent?

  122. avatar
    Navin Ray

    Nope!! Just use a new reactor design by Taylor Wilson.He got some real balls .

  123. avatar
    Magaly Morales

    Yes! We should use the sea, the sun and the win to generate energy. Nuclear energy is dangerous for all.

  124. avatar
    Gaotu Davids

    NO, we would be held to ransom by rogue states such as North Korea & Iran. Nuclear power gives us huge bargaining power without it ever being used, lets not be idealistic to the point of being naive it will be the start any country’s demise.

  125. avatar
    Jerzy Zajączkowski

    Muslims have a much higher birth rate, which will make them win the election in future and nuclear weapons will fall into Islamic hands, and that is a threat to the world.

  126. avatar
    Aris Tselios

    Nuclear Energy is a sensitive issue and each member state has to make his own decisions about that.
    We can’t force members which depend on Nuclear Energy to close down their facilities without giving them money in order to develop another energy resource.

    • avatar
      Lonzo Bildelberg

      Germany tried that… They just razed a church to dig more coal

  127. avatar
    Ivan Burrows

    Yes, it will make the EU less competitive, force up production costs & lead to a new EU crisis which will lead to its collapse even faster :)

    • avatar
      Geo Mandel

      not really since there will be a backup plan such as renewable energy etc

    • avatar
      Ivan Burrows

      Geo Mandel France relies on Nuclear for 75% of its energy use while the rest (including Germany) could not function without coal, oil & gas. If you think you can replace them with windmills and solar panels you really do not understand either energy use or the economics of energy use.

  128. avatar
    Marian Gheorghila

    Da.Prioritar cele din socantaBulgaria,Ucraina,cele mai periculoase,tip sovietice.Apoi eliminarea totala,in functie de investitia energetica -eliminarea fosila

  129. avatar
    Eleni Kapa

    YES, but also in the EU Neithbouring countries, receiving EU funding, i.e. Turkey, which moves now to nuclear, with Russian and other assistance. Now there is technology available for renewable energy production and additional natural gas resources.

  130. avatar
    Vytautas Vėžys

    Again this bullshit? Abandon cleanest, safest, cheapest energy source we have? And why you ask teens in facebook about it and not experts?

  131. avatar
    Andrea Brown

    Simple answer is no. We need nuclear power for base load during the switch away from fossil fuels.

  132. avatar
    Ludwig Theile

    les centrale nous protège contre une éventuelle invasion, car en cas de guerre il’s explose est le vent souffle radioactivité vers envahisseur

  133. avatar
    David Fernandes Coelho

    Not if we will need to be unified against the rest of the nuclear owning countries. And with 2 mad people on opposite sides of the world we need to be prepared.

  134. avatar
    Răzvan Corneliu Vilt

    Absolutely NO. Renewable depends on wind, water or sunlight. Nuclear has no CO2 production, has the lowest associated deaths/TWh of energy produced which makes it the safest energy source. Solar and Wind depend on Lithium batteries for energy storage and those have an insane carbon footprint. Going renewable for the sake of renewable is ridiculous and anti-ecology. Furthermore, the impact of such a decision would rip the EU apart. Some countries have a much higher impact than others. France uses 75% nuclear for its energy production and it cannot make such a transition in an economically feasible way. If you look at the numbers instead of the perception you will realize that nuclear is the safest energy source with an impeccable track record. Creating 50+ GW of renewable energy sources and their energy storage facilities is something that would cost in the hundreds of billions with no real ecological gain.
    Anyone that assumes that nuclear is bad has no idea of the numbers. The number that you should be searching for is deaths/PWh. Coal kills 100000-200000 people for each PetaWatt Hour of energy produced (polution, lung cancer, etc.). Nuclear kills 90. Solar kills 440. Wind kills 150. Hydro kills 1500. Read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents

    • avatar
      Răzvan Corneliu Vilt

      After further reading, the total nuclear power capacity of France is at 64GW, and the cost of replacing it would be about €100-200 Billion for the production and €100 bilion for the storage as you need about 8 hours of energy storage capacity in case of a mostly windless night.
      Take the numbers with a grain of salt, but the scale of hundreds of Billions is real and it only covers a single country.

  135. avatar

    If you manage to replace it, while not leading EU to its ruin, then yes

  136. avatar

    Then we would have to stop censoring the alternative renewable energy collection technologies…

  137. avatar

    Yes, of course. It’s very dangerous and there are alternatives. Nuclear NO, thanks!

  138. avatar

    Move large-scale renewable energy production to the Mediterranean states and build high capacity DC lines between member states. The continent would be energy independent and the southern states would have a major boost to their economies.

  139. avatar

    Destroy the only low carbon energy supply that actually works ? To do so would wreck your competitiveness so go for it, the rest of the industrialised world would love you to.

  140. avatar

    No we should be prepared to defende our beautiful continente

  141. avatar

    Instead of building new power plants, you need to reduce energy consumption by stopping the production of unnecessary items, which after a short time are thrown into the trash.

  142. avatar
    Wolfgang Mizelli

    the waste will be there at least the next 9 billion years.

  143. avatar

    Given how outdated nuclear fission is, and the problems of waste and cost, we need to look elsewhere. The potential that renewable energy sources have is incredible, and becoming far more practical than something invented to create plutonium.

    • avatar

      It’s literally the greenest option we got today.

  144. avatar

    and go back to coal? :)))
    there’s no real alternative for clean energy, and this is working quite well. Ex: France

  145. avatar

    It seems the eu wants to abandon all kinds of power, except, maybe, a bit of wind and solar.

  146. avatar

    Currently, we have to forget power generation is clean. I can heard renewable defensor saying that winds is clean, but for one nuclear power plant we need a field of about 300 km2… which is huge.
    Moreover, what if there is no wind? In this case, price will grow up highly.
    Once we have accepted this reality, we have to see what is our priorities. If it is global warming, we can’t close nuclear power plant.
    If it’s radioactivity issues… we have to close them… but also we should stop radioactivity waste from hospital too…
    The perfect solution doesn’t exist.

  147. avatar

    Dear people, stop thinking small! Nuclear fision… Have you forgotten Fukushima? It is a worldwide effect. WORLDWIDE! We’re just beginning to feel it… Have you forgotten Chernobil? Many of you weren’t yet around… Stop! If we build power plants for the PROFIT they will fail miserably and we will leave the fallout to our children… If we build them for energy then consider this: ATMOSPHERIC ELECTRICITY. Google it. The tech is century old or so… Others, such as putting water into the tank and driving are continuously ignored… Batteries of today are EXTREMELY POLLUTANT TO MAKE! However some dudes, google it, foud a way to store energy in cristaline stuctures… And also use co2 for it… And so on and so forth… Thus yes, to hell with nuclear unless the Germans, French or English finish making their fully functional FUSION reactors! That woukd truly be clean

  148. avatar

    Nuclear energy is a must if we want to tackle climate change…

  149. avatar

    And become slaves to russian and arabian oil?

  150. avatar

    YES! Some people wrote that nuclear energy is clean: where do they found this wrong idea? The radioactive waist of a nuclear power plant is dangerous and will be dangerous for centuries!

  151. avatar

    no, why? Nuclear energy is today the cleanest and most efficient source of energy, it’s quite silly to believe that growing energy consumption (also due to ”green mobility”) could be covered from wind turbines or solar panels.

  152. avatar

    It is the cheapest, and cleanest form of energy. Germany reopened/is in the process of reopening their nuclear plants because of their cost efficient/clean power production. I doubt there is any good reason to phase-out nuclear energy.

  153. avatar

    In as much as the process transitison, Eu countries should use the transition to gradually move from nuclear to bio energy generation, which is more cheaper and sustainable, environmentally friendly.

    • avatar

      I’m worried we don’t get enough energy if we abandon both fossil and nuclear.

    • avatar

      Gustav – me too. But what i recently said is not something that could come to fruition at once, of cause, it i’ll require a massive investing, like that done with the nuclear. We cannot totally abandon nuclear, as we increase the volume of investment we are decreasing our dependants on nuclear. I think if a good investment mathematics is done, there’ll be no shortage of energy.

  154. avatar

    No, absolutely not. We need a lot more electricity in the future when the cars switch from fossil fuels. Wind and solar play their part, but we can’t do it if we abandon both coal and nuclear. So we need more nuclear.

  155. avatar

    We should actualy use more nuclear as a good alternative to coal or oil

  156. avatar
    Seungyun Lee

    I think we should abandon Nuclear power.

  157. avatar

    What? No. That would be insanely dumb

  158. avatar

    is the cheapest and the most efficient. Just keep the 13 century unfriendly new comers away from the plants….

  159. avatar

    Power in general – it is bad for the planet!

  160. avatar

    Europe should be leading the way for the rest of the world in green energy. The lack of ambition in our countries is deplorable.

  161. avatar

    If we can have green energy yes, but it’s very important to have independence in energy production in order not to be hostages of foreign countries which sell us gas and oil. In this aspect nuclear power is indispensable for the time being.

    • avatar

      it would help if we had a European power grid so that any overproduction in a member state would be transfered to other member states.

    • avatar

      that’s a very good idea, but I think we need to boost European integration in order to achieve it.

    • avatar

      I agree. And there are already some high voltage power lines between European countries like Denmark, Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, …

    • avatar

      that’s good, but what I mean is that we need a real common economy and a federal Europe in order to convince member states to transfer their precious energy to others. Something like USE, imagine how powerful such a state would be.

    • avatar

      indeed. More European integration would be good. I think it would also be a good idea to harmonize the social security systems of member states and their taxation systems so that big multinationals can’t pit member states against one another (maybe start with two or three zones to make the transition less brusk for some member states who have to catch up).

    • avatar

      I totally agree my friend a strong society and prosperity guaranties a strong state. Common Taxation system is the firs step to a real united European economy.

    • avatar

      the point of EU is about exploiting a couple of states for the benefict of the politicians in some. Is this sentence ” it would help if we had a European power grid so that any overproduction in a member state would be transfered to other member states” that naive or were you being sarcastic?

    • avatar

      I’m an optimist rather than a pessimist. The point of the EU is whatever we Europeans want it to be if we would vote with this in mind for the European elections. The European Union can be used for different things, but we as citizens have to decide what the direction will be the EU will take. And some progress has been made in connecting the different European national grids with each other, which makes me think European is possible in the near future.

    • avatar

      all very nice ideas… but but but, there are no politicians working for the common good, all working for the small thenselfs
      EU needs new politicians

    • avatar

      you understand that your optimism doesn’t change a bit in the politicians self-service agenda, don’t you?

    • avatar

      here in Belgium there are some young, new faces that are candidates during the European elections, so I will give them my vote to change the course of the European Union.

  162. avatar

    Italy has been without, it is the only onecG8 country without.

  163. avatar

    new generation Nuclear power is necessary until green energy replace fossil fuels

  164. avatar

    Of course not. This energy is cheeper and cleaner

    • avatar

      nuclear has as a matter of fact become more expensive than wind power! So much so that Hitachi has cancelled their plans to build a new nuclear plant in Wales because it couldn’t compete with wind power! Oh, and the production of onshore wind turbines causes less CO2 emissions per kWh (11 g/kWh) than building a nuclear power plant (12 g/kWh; which is the same as offshore wind turbines).

    • avatar

      wind power is really inefficient… In spite massive investment in France it produces barely 1 pc of the global energy.. And it destroys landscape

    • avatar

      Franse has the same problem as us her in Belgium (well, France practically owns most of the Belgian nuclear park): because of the high reliance on nuclear power our national grid is not able to cope with the different kind of power generation of wind energy. Therefor we should invest in a smart grid, energy storage (they recently unveiled a bioaccu in the Netherlands that would be cheaper and more environmental friendly than lithiumionbatteries), decentralized power generation (a Belgian firm builds cheap micro hydro-electric power stations that can deliver power for several households by being installed in a small stream), energy saving (the less electricity you use, the less electricity you need to generate), …

  165. avatar

    presents certain risks, but it is a better ideea than coal or importing gas from infriendly countries.

  166. avatar

    We need to fight climate change. That means we need nuclear power more than ever. Also we need to accelerate the ITER program as a planetary priority.

  167. avatar

    Wtf are you kidding me? Going back to carbon like Germany doesn’t seem the best idea lol

    • avatar

      Germany didn’t go back to carbon, it is still using lignite power plants. But the power generated in those lignite power plants is mainly exported to neighboring countries, so they could actually close them down which the German gouvernement is also planning to do.

    • avatar

      good to know they’re closing them! It was a shame. Thanks for the information!

    • avatar

      every power sources has it drawbacks, but I think wind is one that has less drawbacks than others. The birds being killes by wind turbines is quite exagerates in some media coverage and can probably be easily solved if we put our minds to it.

  168. avatar

    The UK could be powered by offshore windfarms – and conserve fish in the process – but that’s too longterm for politicians.

    • avatar

      Scotland is helping the UK in that perspective, though the British Tory government isn’t really a help.

  169. avatar

    On the contrary, the ones that don’t have it should adopt it. It’s the only realistic alternative to fossil fuels that we have right now. Solar and wind aren’t ready, and won’t be for decades.

    • avatar

      solar and wind are ready to take over in combination with smart grid, energy storage and energy saving measures. New nuclear plants aren’t cheap, take several years to build and have hidden costs (storage of nuclear waste, securing the power plant). Countries that don’t have nuclear should choose wind and solar over nuclear power or they’ll be chained to the big energy companies for several decades!

  170. avatar

    If there is clean energy enough for 100% of EU, why would there be nuclear threat?

  171. avatar

    No they should research more about nuclear waste deposit

  172. avatar

    and.. go back to coal? :D
    France will love it ;)

  173. avatar

    Yes but only when EU is able to produce clean energy for all

  174. avatar

    Of course not… To come back to what? Coal? Oil? Or cavern age?

  175. avatar

    The all EU,not the singles nations, must look what the others big nations (as China US Russia…) are planning.
    France Germany and now Poland(???)…should not take decisions alone. Actually nuclear power can not be abandoned

  176. avatar

    Absolutely. Doesn’t worth the risk, so many safer alternatives.

  177. avatar

    No,of course not. Germany abolished, and, they are going to pay a lot more for energy. What is clean Energy? China and Índia, have a lot of coal plans, working.

  178. avatar

    Since Germany shut down its nuclear power plant, the price of electricity went up and their carbon emissions increased. They would have even more carbon emissions without importing nuclear power from France.
    Sometimes I have the feeling that some of Europe’s crazy greens are really some kind of foreign agents who have an interest in a declining Europe.

  179. avatar

    No, they should adopt it on a larger scale than at present, if we’re serious about combating climate change.

  180. avatar

    Well we already closed 4 reactors for EU, while France and Germany are building new! Sorry, but France and Germany should start destroying before asking others!

  181. avatar

    No. Then Putin will invade us.

  182. avatar

    Yes when all the country’s can produce they’re own clean energy …

  183. avatar

    No we should be building new and more modern plants now!!! We can not switch to electric cars untill we do, or suffer massive increases in CO2

  184. avatar

    No. Nuclear is the best way to meet or beat our CO2 emission targets.
    Or you could bring living standards down to third world levels for everyone, or somehow reduce human population significantly. Neither seem all that feasible, I am guessing they would be very hard to implement without a single tyrannical world government to rule the earth.

  185. avatar

    No. It’s cleaner then most of other energy sources and the risk can be reduced.

  186. avatar

    As soon as possible in order to save Ea

  187. avatar

    Off shore wind farms could power Europe – and save fish.

  188. avatar

    If the whole world agree to abandon nuclear power, EU should do the same. However, EU should be be so stupid to disarm itself when small states can have nuclear power to threaten us. Of course, it is an ideal if EU can use its wisdom and influence to help create a nuclear free world.

  189. avatar

    Before we can find alternative means to generate power without polluting the earth, nuclear power is required, as long as it is used for peaceful means.

  190. avatar

    Nuclear power maybe effective but as our world becomes more polluted we should be redefining the word sustainable. Spent rods are stored underground in salt mines ect when water comes in to contact with salt it dissolves causing sinkholes this is where we place the most toxic stuff on the planet. It’s laughable to think we can control nature. This means we need to find another clean source of energy and soon.

  191. avatar
    Giulia e Angelica

    We believe that it is right to eliminate nuclear power stations throughout Europe because they pullute and are very harmful to our health.

  192. avatar

    Yeah and buy gas from russia or oil from Persian Golf. Or better burn coal until we all look like miners.

  193. avatar

    Of course not… It is the cleanest energy

  194. avatar

    No. We should do more research on nuclear waste management and eventually increase use of nuclear power

  195. avatar

    Yes, or we need better tech.
    For now though it seems we cant abondon them but need to increase them as ipcc suggested.

  196. avatar

    As expensive and dangerous as it could be if not handled, it is necessary considering that it doesn’t have a high CO2 production like coal or gas energy production.
    And with the “dangerous” point of view, other energy ways of production kill you in ways that you can’t see, with pollution or climate change.
    But hey, if radiation is bad, are PM2.5 good?

  197. avatar

    No. Work on safety and fuel disposal and then it’s fine.

  198. avatar

    No, liberalize the energy markets. Increase reserve capacity.

    • avatar

      Strategic monopolies should not be given to private hands.

  199. avatar

    So follow the example of Germany…..closing zero emission nucleur and ramp up mining and burning of lignite (Brown coal) which makes it the number 1 polluter in europe !!

  200. avatar

    No. Even if it’s dangerous, it’s still the cleanest and efficient form of producing energy. Just improve the safety standards for everything related to them. Or we’ll end poisoning Earth fearing atom, but blasting “safe” bigger and bigger nuclear bombs.

  201. avatar

    No !!!… Humanity needs sone more nuclear disasters😁🤔..

  202. avatar

    No bc new reactors are very safe and what is France going to do with its near 100% nuclear production?

  203. avatar

    the nuclear waste is very sustainable. stays next couple of billion years.

  204. avatar
    Е. М.

    It is the safest energy outthere.

  205. avatar

    No. It’s the cleanest energy we have and the most efficient. We need to work more on it and work on better waste disposal.

  206. avatar

    Yes of course it is the most dangerous form of energy !

  207. avatar

    They can be dangerous, but fossil fuels are guaranteed disastrous. If it is a choice between those two, it should be an easy choice.

  208. avatar

    No, not before EU has sufficient clean energy to replace nuclear power.

Your email will not be published

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Notify me of new comments. You can also subscribe without commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

More debate series – ME&EU View all

By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Privacy Policy unless you have disabled them. You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.