Nuclear Energy: Policy Shift Toward Acceptance
Master the Moment and Reach Your Peak with Defoes
“Defoes unpacks Europe’s quiet nuclear U‑turn — from court‑backed green‑taxonomy status to Commission‑led SMR strategies and renewed national programmes — showing how policy is steadily turning nuclear from a contested outlier into a formally endorsed pillar of the continent’s net‑zero and energy‑security plans.”
The centre of gravity in European nuclear policy is moving from managed phase‑out to conditional acceptance. The EU General Court’s 2025 ruling upholding the inclusion of nuclear in the bloc’s sustainable‑finance taxonomy confirmed that, under strict conditions, nuclear activities can be labelled as climate‑friendly investments. At the political level, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has since described turning away from nuclear as a “strategic mistake”, pairing that assessment with a 200‑million‑euro incentive package for small modular reactors (SMRs). Defoes’ stance is bullish on the direction of travel: this is not an uncritical embrace of nuclear, but it is a decisive move from tolerance at the margins to structured integration within Europe’s decarbonisation and energy‑security toolkit.
The taxonomy rulings matter because they convert political debate into legal and financial signals. Delegated Regulation 2022/1214, which added certain nuclear and gas activities to the taxonomy under tight technical criteria, survived a full legal challenge by Austria and Luxembourg; the General Court found that the Commission was entitled to regard nuclear as a transitional activity with near‑zero operational emissions and no scalable low‑carbon substitute for some system roles. Legal commentators highlight that the judgment confirms the Commission’s “broad margin of discretion” in setting screening criteria, and explicitly validates nuclear as capable of contributing “substantially” to climate‑change mitigation and adaptation when DNSH (do‑no‑significant‑harm) conditions are met. For investors, that reduces regulatory ambiguity: nuclear projects that meet taxonomy criteria can, in principle, be held in funds with green or transitional mandates, even if individual LPs still impose their own exclusions.
Policy positions in member states are also shifting. Belgium, once committed to a full nuclear phase‑out, is now preparing to nationalise its reactor fleet and halt dismantling plans, extending the lives of the two remaining units to 2035 and exploring new nuclear capacity to bolster energy security. Italy, which closed its reactors after two anti‑nuclear referendums, has introduced draft legislation to pave the way for a nuclear comeback, while debates in Spain and other states over reversing phase‑out paths have become more prominent. Meanwhile, the Commission’s latest Nuclear Illustrative Programme (PINC) estimates that around 241 billion euros in present‑value investment will be needed by 2050 for lifetime extensions of existing EU reactors and construction of new large‑scale plants. That figure is not a funding commitment, but it quantifies the scale of the opportunity set that current policy is implicitly endorsing.
SMRs and advanced reactors are the forward‑leaning expression of this acceptance. In March 2026, the Commission unveiled a dedicated SMR/AMR strategy that aims to bring the first European SMR projects online in the early 2030s through a coordinated approach among member states, industry, regulators and investors. The strategy emphasises standardisation, joint licensing efforts and public‑finance instruments to de‑risk early projects, with the goal of avoiding fragmented one‑off deployments. In parallel, the Commission’s broader SMR information pages now openly describe SMRs as low‑carbon solutions for the energy transition, pointing to their smaller footprints, enhanced safety features and potential for industrial heat and hydrogen production. Combined with taxonomy acceptance, this turns nuclear from a reputational outlier into a technology class actively nurtured within the EU’s transition architecture.
The pushback is real and remains part of the investment landscape. Renewable‑industry associations and some NGOs argue that the taxonomy rulings amount to a “blank cheque” for gas and nuclear, warning of greenwashing risks and highlighting unresolved issues such as uranium mining impacts, long‑term waste management and climate‑driven water‑stress on reactors. Political acceptance also remains uneven: Germany’s exit is still intact, and several member states show little interest in new nuclear build despite the EU‑level shift. For investors, this means that policy risk has not disappeared; it has evolved into a more granular risk around project‑level compliance with EU criteria and the durability of national‑level support.
From a Defoes perspective, the policy shift toward nuclear acceptance in Europe is structurally significant. Courts have confirmed that nuclear can sit inside the sustainable‑finance rulebook; the Commission is quantifying multi‑decade investment needs; and individual governments are reversing or softening phase‑outs in the name of energy security and net‑zero deadlines. The bullish stance is not that nuclear has become universally popular or risk‑free, but that it is now formally embedded in the legal and strategic infrastructure of Europe’s transition. For capital with the mandate and risk appetite to navigate country‑specific politics and stringent technical criteria, that embedding is the difference between a technology fighting for survival and one with a credible, policy‑anchored role in Europe’s long‑term energy mix.