The pronuclear pressure group pressed the accelerator. Recognized and supported by supernuclear France, it achieved success: including this source in the catalog of “clean energy” of the European Union, on the basis of the fact that it does not release polluting emissions, which warm the globe.
Meanwhile, environmental activists and those in favor of renewable energy – from natural sources that replenish themselves faster than they can be consumed – are experiencing a paradox. On the one hand they prevail over fossil energies, especially in the production of electricity; On the other hand they cannot overcome the inclination towards cleanliness (sui generis) with the reference to the risk of catastrophe. We remember: Three Mile Island in the USA (1979), and the explosions of Chernobyl (USSR, 1986) and Fukushima (Japan, 2011).
Spain exemplifies this contradiction. Electricity produced with modern renewables reached 47% of the total in 2024 (and another 12% with hydroelectric); against 21% for nuclear; 12% gas cycles; 1% coal and 7% cogeneration and waste (The numbers of the Spanish electricity sector2024, Naturgy Foundation).
We discussed the five Spanish factories (Almaraz, Ascó, Cofrentes, Trillo and Vandellos), whether their life should be extended beyond the closure expected between 2027 (Almaraz) and 2035 (the others), without calculating this risk: we will only do so if some accident occurs (unlikely but possible).
Put this concern aside as if it were inert, the discussion is more pragmatic and less noble. The Government has imposed three conditions for any extension of its useful life: no additional cost to the taxpayer; safety; supply guarantee. The electricity companies that own it have asked to extend Almaraz for three years.
This responds to an economic-business logic: it is already amortized, so all its results would become distributable profit… except those intended for the modernization of the plant, according to the guidelines of the Nuclear Safety Council. And a discussion on supply: its 21% share will hardly be able to be replaced by others with equal effectiveness (renewable energies are barely stored). Be careful, the economy could suffer.
But his (now frozen) demand for tax cuts has little relevance. Of the 7,592 million in state taxes brought in by the electricity system (2023), only one-ninth, 795 million, corresponds to nuclear-specific tax figures (its contribution is more than double, 22% that year, according to “Taxation of the electricity sector”, Naturgy Foundation). In a growing sector, the big three, Iberdrola, Endesa and Naturgy, have just confirmed their final profit forecasts for 2025: 10.6 billion euros.
On the opposite side there are other problems. That the cost of nuclear power (64 euros per MW/h) is lower than fossil fuel, yes, but almost double that of solar power (Lazard). That the extension of Almaraz constitutes an automatic precedent for everyone, without evaluating the differences. And which promotes renuclearization which absorbs resources from renewable priorities and from its research (in storage). All this and more, even the “ideological” aspects (risks and insufficiencies of each) should be part of a new calm and in-depth debate.
