The Belgian government wants to regain full control over energy policy and has secured a purchase option on Engie’s Belgian nuclear operations. Although the decision, a historic shift following the nuclear phase-out under the Verhofstadt 1 government, is generally welcomed, criticism is also growing.
The costs remain a major question mark – even Prime Minister De Wever admits he cannot guarantee it will pay for itself. Moreover, nationalization offers no guarantee of cheaper electricity for households or businesses, and its climate impact is limited. At the same time, the same government continues to heavily subsidize the fossil fuel consumption it claims to want to phase out.
Cost remains a major question mark
The news dropped like a bombshell on Thursday: The Belgian government and the French company Engie are set to begin negotiations regarding the potential acquisition of the 7 reactors in Doel and Tihange in Belgium.
With this move, the De Wever 1 government is once again firmly taking the reins on the nuclear issue. It is no longer dependent on the commercial strategy of a foreign player that would prefer to phase out nuclear energy.
Although nationalization gives Belgium back control over its own energy future, the decision remains a huge gamble: no one knows whether the takeover, including the seven reactors, all personnel (approximately 2,000 employees), all subsidiaries, and all obligations regarding decommissioning and shutdown, will be financially viable or what the nationalization will cost. Initial studies must be conducted on this matter. The parties aim to finalize the key provisions by October 1, 2026.
Buy 2, pay for 7
Currently, only two of those seven reactors are still capable of generating electricity – Doel 4 and Tihange 3 – though they are currently offline for maintenance in preparation for their extension until 2035 (and maybe 2045). The investment required to extend Doel 4 and Tihange 3 has already been estimated at 1.6 to 2 billion euros.
For the five older reactors that have already been shut down, and for which decommissioning work is being halted immediately, the cost of restarting them would amount to 3 to 4 billion euros.
Engie has set aside 8.7 billion euros in provisions for the full decommissioning and waste management obligations, but an additional 2.9 billion euros has been requested.
The realistic scenario is that only one to three reactors can be restarted: Doel 4, Tihange 3, and Tihange 1. Doel 3 and Tihange 2 are already well into the decommissioning process and crack issues. Doel 1 and 2 do not meet modern safety standards for aircraft impacts.
Furthermore, the government plans to develop small, flexible SMRs eventually, likely at the Doel and Tihange sites, for 1 billion euros. A 300 MW SMR is significantly cheaper than a traditional reactor, which costs at least 10 billion euros.
But again, no estimate of the extension’s expected costs is currently available, and predicting the total future nuclear cost is pure speculation.
Skepticism
De Wever’s decision has therefore been met not only with applause but also with considerable skepticism regarding the actual cost. Some fear that renovating the old nuclear plants will cost many billions, and that all that money can never be recouped through electricity sales, even though De Wever believes it is an investment that will pay off.
“Certainly not if you also take into account the costs of energy dependence,” said the Prime Minister, who added that he might eventually consider collaborating with other private partners, notably EDF or the Canadian OPG.
Energy Minister Maxime Bihet (MR) also pointed out that Belgium recently had to import massive amounts of French nuclear power. With its own production capacity, that dependence would decrease.
Still, opponents have their reservations. For instance, the government is the weaker party in the negotiations, and the dependency does not disappear because 46% of the enriched uranium for nuclear power plants currently comes from Russia. In other words, complete energy autonomy is an illusion.
Moreover, nationalization is no guarantee of cheaper electricity for households or businesses. According to energy expert Joannes Laveyne (Ghent University), the price of nuclear power simply fluctuates around the market average when all costs are considered.
Importing electricity from neighboring countries can also be cheaper than generating it domestically, especially in markets where renewable energy is increasingly setting prices.
Plus: if those same billions were invested in renewable energy, battery storage, and grid upgrades, Belgium could build a fundamentally different energy future, without placing the entire financial burden on the state and (future generations of) taxpayers.
Some people are even using the word ‘standstill’. After all, it will take years for that nationalization to be finalized, and in the meantime, the government is creating enormous uncertainty within the energy sector.
Inconsistent policy
In the coming years, Belgium will inevitably need much more electricity for mobility, heating, and industrial processes as part of the energy transition. The Planning Bureau, which advocates for more CO₂-free electricity production, via nuclear energy and wind power, and the widespread electrification of heating and transportation, even predicts that electricity demand will double in the coming decades due to the shift toward electric cars and heat pumps.
But the strategic decision to nationalize nuclear energy once again highlights the inconsistency in Belgian energy policy. While Belgium intends to spend billions on nuclear nationalization and aims to make itself ‘energy-independent,’ that same government is heavily subsidizing the very fossil fuel consumption it claims to want to phase out. Fossil fuels are still subsidized to the tune of 15 billion euros per year.
