European Nuclear Energy 2026 (Stockholm) — February 26, 2026 — The At European Nuclear Energy 2026 in Stockholm, Anthropocene Institute physicist Jesús Alejandro Pineda presented new data showing that nuclear energy is one of the strongest predictors of lower electricity prices, lower emissions, and greater grid stability.

The global pursuit of cheap, abundant, and clean energy is driven by the imperative to strengthen energy security, foster economic development, and, critically, decouple economic growth from carbon emissions. According to Pineda’s analysis, cross-regional energy data reveals a consistent pattern: premature nuclear shutdowns increase emissions and price volatility, while maintaining or expanding nuclear capacity lowers both.

A Cheaper, More Reliable Grid

Pineda’s analysis of pricing data from the EU and the US revealed a sobering reality: prematurely shutting down nuclear power plants has consistently led to higher emissions and less stable, more expensive energy costs. Conversely, maintaining and expanding nuclear capacity results in lower emissions and more predictable prices. He also asserted that nuclear energy offers a powerful buffer against external system shocks, such as pandemics and geopolitical instability, as well as internal system shocks, like power plant shutdowns or grid instabilities —all of which are factors in the daily energy pricing. 

Furthermore, he emphasized the untapped potential for nuclear energy’s inclusion in carbon credit markets that currently exclude it. By preventing the release of carbon emissions, expanding nuclear generation capacity could unlock significant value if access to these markets is granted, and not doing so is practically leaving money on the table. 

The Consequences of Nuclear Exit

But Pineda did not make these claims without evidence, as he drilled down into case studies from several European nations, underscoring the strategic mistake of abandoning nuclear power.

Germany: The Cost of Decommissioning

Germany’s "atomic exit", Atomausstieg, between 2011 and 2024 offers a cautionary tale. Germany shut down 17 reactors, totalling in the loss of 800TWh of zero-carbon electricity. According to a report made in collaboration with WePlanet, the lost nuclear generation was replaced almost entirely by fossil fuels (98% coal and 2% gas). While Germany added more renewables to their grid to compensate, the result was that clean energy was used to replace clean energy, while Germany’s grid continued to rely on fossil fuels to fill the gap. Furthermore, shutting down nuclear plants resulted in the country becoming dependent on foreign energy suppliers—most notably Russia, resulting in higher energy prices when Russia invaded Ukraine. Although the carbon intensity of the German grid did eventually drop, Pineda asserted that it would have been substantially lower had the nuclear plants been kept online.

Spain: Why Not All Renewables?

From 2015 to 2024, Spain saw a 320% increase in solar and 25.9% increase in wind generation, leading to a significant reduction in the use of coal, and oil. Nuclear's share remained largely stable, as did natural gas consumption. While fossil fuel reliance has dropped, reliance on intermittent sources poses a risk, highlighted by the April 2025 blackout across the Iberian peninsula. The outage's cause is still under investigation but likely involved several factors, including the lack of synchronous power generation, inadequate management of excess voltage from renewables, and weak grid interconnections.

The nation’s low reliance on nuclear power means that scheduled versus unscheduled outages remain largely consistent in their minimal price impact. However, while a loss of nuclear power does not significantly impact Spanish energy prices, the lack of nuclear power as a stable backstop—which is essential for stabalizing grid frequency and providing synchronous generation capacity—exposes the system to instabilities that appear to have contributed to the widespread blackout.

Belgium: The Price of Foreign Fuel Dependency

Belgium's energy decisions between 2015 and 2024 also illustrate the dangers of a nuclear phase-out. The shutdown of the Doel 3 and Tihange 2 reactors led to an increased dependence on natural gas. Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Belgium lost access to its gas supply, forcing a tripling of imports from the US. This switch led to avoidable increases in emissions and higher costs, directly impacting Belgian citizens’ pockets. Electricity prices in Belgium have remained stubbornly high, reaching 100% above pre-pandemic levels. Price variability remains at pandemic-era levels, failing to return to normal.

Finland: Lower Emissions, Lower Prices, But Why Not All Nuclear?

In contrast to nations phasing out nuclear energy, Finland is expanding its fleet, notably with the Olkiluoto 3 (OL3) reactor, now the most powerful in Europe. Despite initial issues, OL3 has reduced carbon emissions by about 7.4 million tons of CO2 and helped lower Finnish energy prices toward pre-pandemic and pre-Ukrainian invasion levels. Pineda estimated the carbon displaced by Finland's nuclear fleet could equate to over 400 million Euros for reinvestment if included in carbon markets.

However, Pineda noted that relying too heavily on one energy source, whether nuclear or renewables, is risky. While OL3 is a powerhouse, it accounted for 30% of all outages between 2015 and 2024. When OL3 has an outage, planned or unplanned, the impact on price variability is enormous and that impact can last for up to six weeks even after power has been restored.

California, U.S.: Gas, Gas, and more Gas

California has phased out most nuclear power, leaving only Diablo Canyon. Natural gas (44%) dominates the state's energy mix, followed by solar (19%), hydro (13%), and nuclear (8%). As renewables grow and nuclear declines, reliance on natural gas increases. The Anthropocene Institute and partners have worked to keep Diablo Canyon open, complicated by PG&E's desire to close it due to regulations that “favor renewables but disfavor nuclear generation.” The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) has countered this, however, warning that closing Diablo Canyon would destabilize the grid and increase fossil fuel dependence even further.

Pineda’s analysis of California’s planned and unplanned outages revealed an impact similar to Spain’s. Since the state does not rely heavily on nuclear energy, outages have a small direct effect on price variability. However, Pineda noted the negative impact is seen in an undesirable emissions and energy profile, where natural gas backstops the highly variable solar and wind power.

Sweden: Nuclear, Wind, and Hydro and an Imbalanced Grid

The shutdown of the Ringhals 1 & 2 reactors and the expansion of renewables fundamentally altered the grid structure, and not in favor of stability. Prior to the shutdowns, nuclear, hydro, and wind formed a stable "three-legged stool," with nuclear and hydro providing backstop stability. Historically, the energy surplus from the rural north satisfied the high consumption of the urban south, keeping prices consistent. Hydro helped stabilize prices and generation and nuclear served as a second backstop for intermittent generation by wind. However, replacing stable nuclear power largely with unpredictable wind power caused northern and southern prices to decouple, leaving the high-demand south with significantly higher costs. Hydro is now overburdened, trying to backstop both wind and the lost nuclear capacity. This highlights that simply replacing megawatt-hours 1:1 is inadequate; the capacity factor and stability of energy sources matter.

Nuclear Expansion: The Path to Lower Emissions and Cheaper Energy

The analysis of all these locations draws one conclusion: a diversified energy portfolio is essential to grid and energy price stability. Ultimately, the move toward a secure, stable, and decarbonized energy future demands a pragmatic and inclusive approach. Countries like Germany and Belgium have demonstrated that prematurely shuttering nuclear capacity often leads to a reliance on higher-carbon alternatives like coal and natural gas, directly undermining climate goals. The capacity factor of energy sources must also be prioritized; simply replacing MWh 1:1 is insufficient, as seen in California and Sweden. As the EU focuses on strategic reinvestment, the integration of nuclear energy is imperative—not only for its ability to reduce emissions but also by making it eligible for carbon credit markets, which could unlock funding for more clean energy projects. Only a balanced, "all hands on deck" strategy that integrates stable, clean nuclear power alongside renewables, can reliably deliver the energy security and climate outcomes the world urgently needs.