Nuclear Power in the Netherlands

Executive Summary

Nuclear is back on the agenda. Plans envisage ~3 GW by 2040 alongside Borssele, but delivery spans multiple cabinets, raising risks of reversal if the rationale is weak.

The public rationale is incomplete. Key trade‑offs and alternatives have not yet been assessed in an integrated way, limiting confidence in long‑term value for money.

Decide on evidence, not momentum. A whole‑system comparison should precede irreversible commitments to avoid costly mid‑course corrections.

Compare across full criteria. Reliability “insurance”, lifecycle impacts, total system costs, spatial footprint, and import dependencies should be evaluated consistently against renewable‑heavy pathways.

Coordinate with Europe. Cross‑border choices on build/closure affect national calculus, grid planning, and the risk of wasted outlays.

Policy Recommendations

1. Conduct an integrated assessment: Complete a full cost‑benefit and system‑planning study before any go/no‑go decision.
2. Benchmark nuclear vs alternatives: Compare reliability, lifecycle sustainability, total cost, land use, and import risks across scenarios.
3. Value the insurance role explicitly: Quantify the benefit of nuclear as a hedge against renewable under‑delivery.
4. Engage EU partners early: Coordinate to avoid duplicative build/closure cycles.
5. Delay irreversible steps: Defer major contractual commitments until the evidence base is robust and publicly tested.