Closing nuclear is not just a political decision, but also an economic problem. The dismantling bill and radioactive waste already exceeds 20.3 billion euros, and the debate between electric and government has only started.
An invoice that does not stop growing. According to Enresa’s memorythe public company in charge of dismantling, the total expected cost already reaches 20,367 million euros. The majority corresponds to the dismantling of the reactors, with 17,520.5 million, while waste management and spent fuel, the so -called “electric rate”, adds 2,846.8 million. The rest of the activities, such as the management of the enusa fuel factory in Salamanca, complete the invoice.
The fund that finances these operations, nourished with contributions from the electricity, accumulated 8,677 million at the end of 2024, after the 30% rise in the valuation rate since July of last year. This means that it only covers 43% of the planned cost, leaving in the air a gap of 11,690 million euros still to finance.
The plan that changed everything. The 7th General Radioactive Waste Plan (PGRR), Approved at the end of 2023was a change of stage by definitely abandoning the centralized temporary warehouse project (ATC) in Villar de Cañas. Instead, waste has been chosen in independent temporary stores (ATI) located in each central, waiting for deep geological storage (AGP) that should be ready in 2072.
The PGRR extends the forecasts up to 2100 and delays the total closure of the nuclear park until 2035with Trillo and Vandellós II as the latest plants in going out. To this is added the legal obligation to annually review the forecasts, which adjusts the costs to inflation and the new technical conditions.
Electric against rates. The companies, headed by Iberdrola and Endesa, say that operating under this cost scheme is unfeasible. Both have presented resources in the courts against the increase of 30% of the Enresa rate and have claimed millionaire compensation. Besides, They have requested that the closing calendar be reopenedarguing that prolonging the useful life of the reactors would relieve pressure on the electrical system.
According to a report by the consultant EY cited by Nuclear ForumSpain supports the highest nuclear fiscal burden in Europe, with 27.3 euros per megavatio hour in specific encumbrances, which in the opinion of companies places them at a clear disadvantage against other countries.
The red line of the government. The Executive maintains its position: the costs of dismantling and management of waste will not fall on consumers. The minister for ecological transition, Sara Aagesen, has responded to electricity with three conditions for any extension of the nuclear park: that does not involve additional costs for citizens, that supply security is guaranteed and that plants strictly comply With the standards of the Nuclear Safety Council (CSN).
The Government insists that there are no formal negotiations to extend the lives of the centrals and accuses companies to try to transfer their invoice to the whole citizenship. The Secretary of State for Energy, Joan Groizard, summarized the position In statements collected by eldiario.es: “They want part of the dismantling costs to be paid among all, and we will not transfer it to the whole citizenship.”
Forecasts and uncertainties. Costs can continue to grow. The French case is a notice as they have advanced at eldiario.es: The Andra agency reviewed in 2025 the cost of the AGP Cigéo between 26,100 and 37,500 million, an increase of up to 60% compared to 2016.
In Spain they have prepared The 9th R&D Plan (2024-2028) of Enresa It includes 31 million in research to develop containers, confinement materials and recover fuel. A modest figure compared to billions at stake, but key to preparing the future AGP of 2072 and reducing long -term risks. In addition, Spain faces this solo calendar within Europe. While France, Sweden or Switzerland choose to expand the life of their reactors or even promote new projects, the Spanish PGRR maintains a plan of Progressive closure without planned extensions.
A debate that goes beyond closing. The balance of the electrical system is also present. This summer a paradox has been evidenced: historical record of solar production in Europe, but invoices fired by the lack of storage and the need to resort to gas in night hours. In that hole is where the nuclear has played so far a stable backup role, but does not solve that background problem: it only postpones the closure, it makes the costs more expensive and aggravates the inheritance of waste.
The dilemma is clear: can you do without it before the network is prepared to guarantee the same stability without firing the price of light? For the Government, the response is to accelerate renewables, storage and interconnections. For electricity, to keep the nuclear live longer.
Image | Unspash
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings