Congress approves postponing nuclear shutdown: why does it pose a risk to renewables?

The Spanish congress of deputies has approved a non-legislative proposal (PNL) presented by the Popular Party (PP), which calls on the government to extend the operational life of nuclear power plants, currently scheduled to shut down between 2027 and 2035.

The vote resulted in 171 votes in favour (PP, Vox, and UPN), 164 against (PSOE, Sumar, PNV, and the Mixed Group), and 14 abstentions (Junts per Catalunya and Esquerra Republicana).

Despite parliamentary backing, the PNL does not compel the government to alter the shutdown schedule, but it does send a political signal about the viability of nuclear energy in Spain.

PP MP Guillermo Mariscal argued that the government has designed a fiscal and regulatory framework that "strangles" nuclear energy, making its continuation unfeasible.

"If nuclear energy is not competitive, it is because the government itself has ensured that it isn"t," Mariscal stated, insisting that nuclear power is a "safe and abundant" source.

The Socialist Group and its allies, however, defended the phased shutdown, asserting that nuclear power is neither cheap nor clean, as it generates waste that is difficult to manage and comes with high maintenance costs.

PSOE MP Isabel Pérez Ortiz accused the PP of "aligning with private interests" and obstructing a fair energy transition based on renewables.

According to Ismael Morales, head of climate policies at Fundación Renovables, the future of nuclear power is not a matter of political decision-making but rather of the stance taken by the owning companies and the regulator.

In dialogue with Strategic Energy Europe, he points out that the shutdown of nuclear plants is not due to a government mandate but to business strategy, as the companies themselves agreed to decommission the plants due to lack of profitability and long-term operational risks.

From his perspective, nuclear power has fulfilled its role in the energy transition and should not be prolonged.

"The 20% base load stability that nuclear provides will not increase, and keeping it only serves to block the entry and growth of other technologies," he warns.

A central argument of those supporting the continued operation of nuclear plants is that they could remain competitive if their taxes and regulatory costs were revised.

According to Javier Revuelta, senior principal at AFRY, the potential cost of nuclear generation could be around 45/MWh, making it profitable if certain taxes and debatable cost elements were reduced.

"Electric companies make decisions within a regulatory framework designed by the regulator, and it is up to the government to decide whether to maintain this asset for its contribution to prices and supply security," he explains.

However, Morales criticises the idea of adjusting nuclear taxation without applying the same treatment to renewables.

"If nuclear needs tax relief to be competitive, then it isn"t truly competitive," he argues, highlighting that renewables continue to bear high fiscal and operational costs without receiving comparable benefits to those now being considered for nuclear power.

SThe issue is not just the cost of generation.

Renewable energy projects must incorporate decommissioning costs at the end of their lifecycle into their financial structuresomething that does not apply to nuclear in the same way," explains the Fundación Renovables representative.

"If we grant tax advantages to nuclear, why not to wind or solar?" he questions.

During the debate on nuclear energy"s viability, some industry representatives pointed to Germany as an argument for keeping nuclear plants operational.

In April 2023, Germany shut down its last nuclear reactor as part of its energy transition policy, temporarily increasing coal usage to meet demand.

However, this coal dependency has since declined as Germany has ramped up its renewable energy capacity and developed new storage and efficiency strategies.

Morales rejects direct comparisons with Spain, arguing that differences in energy mix and interconnection infrastructure make the scenarios incomparable.

"Germany depended on Russian gas, which is not the case for Spain, and its interconnections with North Africa and a more diversified energy system make a significant difference," he adds.

From his perspective, the argument that shutting down nuclear plants will lead to a supply crisis does not hold up, as the real challenge lies in accelerating the integration of renewables and storagesomething that extending nuclear operations could hinder.

Beyond the debate on nuclear competitiveness, its extension could negatively impact investment in renewables and storage by delaying the need to deploy new technologies.

According to Miguel Marroquín, managing director at Our New Energy, keeping nuclear plants running hampers investment in renewables and storage, arguing that the transition should be accelerated rather than prolonging outdated technologies.

He also stresses that if nuclear is added to an already saturated renewable energy system, many hours of the day will see extremely low prices, reducing the profitability of renewable projects.

From his perspective, the biggest risk of extending nuclear power"s lifespan is that delaying its closure also postpones the entry of new renewable capacity and storage solutions.

"If we keep nuclear plants open, short-term prices may be lower, but in the long term, a lack of investment could leave us without sufficient capacity when we truly need to replace nuclear," he warns.

While nuclear energy advocates argue that its continuation could ensure price stability and supply security, its opponents warn that it could become a barrier to developing new clean technologies.

For Morales, the key lies in setting clear rules for the sector"s future.

He concludes: "We cannot keep changing the regulatory framework every few years.

If we want a stable and sustainable energy transition, we must send clear signals to investors.