closure

Delaying the closure of a single plant forces us to redesign the entire energy map of Spain

by

Right in the middle of a relentless political and business battle to extend the life of the Spanish atomic park, the harsh reality of the market has imposed itself. While top executives discuss the long-term future, the present has hit the table: the owner of the Almaraz II nuclear power plant notified the Nuclear Safety Council (CSN) of an unscheduled shutdown of its reactor and its decoupling from the electrical grid. The alarms did not go off due to a security problem. In fact, the incident was classified as level 0 (no significance for security) on the international INES scale, to which we have had access. The real reason was purely economic and motivated by causes related to the electricity market. As explained The Extremadura Newspaper, The recent succession of storms triggered renewable production —sinking electricity prices— which, added to an “unaffordable tax burden” that represents more than 75% of its variable costs, made it completely unfeasible to keep the reactor on. The recent pulse: from disconnection to extension This disconnection collides head-on with the intense corporate movements of recent weeks. At the end of October, Iberdrola, Endesa and Naturgy presented to the Executive a formal request to postpone until June 2030 the closure of Almaraz, whose two reactors were scheduled to be disconnected for 2027 and 2028. But the ambition of the sector does not stop in Cáceres. According to Five Daysthe president of Iberdrola, Ignacio Sánchez Galán, has confirmed that they will request the expansion of other plants in the future, ensuring that “most of them can reach 60 and even 80 years.” This position is supported by technical and logistical arguments from the industry. As detailed in The Economistthe CEO of Endesa, José Bogas, aspires to prolong “in round numbers about 10 more years” the entire Spanish nuclear park. Bogas argues that it does not make logistical sense to proceed with the complex dismantling of two groups of the same plant on different dates (2027 and 2028). Meanwhile, the CSN is already analyzing the documentation to issue its mandatory report, foreseeably in summer, as reported in a press release from the regulator itself. The possible extension of Almaraz has opened a huge gap between two irreconcilable visions of the energy transition. In the block of those who defend extending atomic life, economic and labor arguments set the pace. According to the statements of Ignacio Sánchez Galán collected by Vozpópulinuclear power plants are a key element in reducing the price of electricity. In fact, the president of Iberdrola recalls that European countries that lack this type of energy, such as Italy and Germany, pay “about 20 euros more” per megawatt hour for electricity compared to Spain and France. Added to this defense of competitiveness is the warning about the direct impact on the final consumer’s pocket. A recent report from the OBS Business School alert that if Almaraz closesthe inevitable dependence on gas would increase the electricity bill by around 23% for households – between 150 and 250 euros more per year – and up to 35% for industry. Beyond the receipt, there is the territorial factor. The College of Industrial Engineers, in statements to The Energy Newspaperremember that this plant not only generates 7% of the electricity in all of Spain, complying with the highest international safety standards (WANO 1), but is also a vital economic engine to sustain 4,000 direct and indirect jobs that stop depopulation in the region. However, against this position stands a solid wall of detractors who see the extension as an imminent danger for the green transition. A joint investigation by the Rey Juan Carlos University (URJC) and the Polytechnic University of Catalonia (UPC), prepared on behalf of Greenpeaceconcludes that extending Almaraz for just three years would mean “momentary relief, structural damage.” Researchers calculate that this decision would cost consumers a cumulative extra cost of 3,831 million euros between now and 2033 and would stop up to 26,129 million euros in investments destined for new clean energies. From Greenpeace they also point to the so-called “plug effect”: since nuclear is an inflexible technology that produces fixed gear regardless of demand, it often forces us to disconnect or waste renewable energy—free and clean—in times of high sun or wind. This situation generates a climate of enormous concern in the green sector. In an interview with InfoLibrePedro Fresco, general director of the Valencian renewable employer association Avaesen, warns that granting a “mini-extension” of three years would be the worst possible scenario. In his opinion, this movement would send a message of total uncertainty to investors, threatening to stop the development of future renewable projects in its tracks. The “Domino Effect”: rewriting the energy map The true background of this battle is that Almaraz is not an isolated piece. As several experts warn he Vigo Lighthouse and andl Newspaper of Extremaduradelaying the closure of the Cáceres plant would unleash an unstoppable “domino effect” throughout the national territory. If Almaraz is delayed to 2030, its closure would coincide in time with that of Ascó I (Tarragona) and Cofrentes (Valencia). The electricity companies assume that the Government would also have to postpone these closures to avoid overlapping the gigantic and complex work of dismantling four reactors simultaneously. This would also force the closures of Ascó II, Vandellós II and Trillo to be pushed well beyond 2035, blowing up the current National Integrated Energy and Climate Plan (PNIEC). The final decision is in the hands of the Executive, which for the moment maintains its position. The Government has marked three non-negotiable red lines to accept any change: that it guarantees radiological safety, security of supply and, above all, that it does not cost consumers an extra euro or imply tax reductions for electricity companies. And this is where the circle closes. As Galán insists on Vozpópulithe plants bear an enormous tax burden of “30-35 euros per megawatt hour.” Without a tax reduction, electricity companies threaten economic viability; but without profitability, it is the market itself that, as … Read more

The closure of QatarEnergy shoots up the price by 45%, reviving fears of 2022

by

Just when Europe breathed a sigh of relief, convinced of having stabilized its energy supply after the traumatic cut of ties with Putin’s Russia, the specter of the 2022 crisis has materialized again. A new “Black Monday” has shaken international markets, but this time the epicenter is not in Eastern Europe, but in the waters of the Persian Gulf. An unprecedented escalation of war in the Middle East has culminated with the temporary closure of the largest liquefied natural gas (LNG) export plant in the world. Europe reaches this moment in a position of vulnerability, since the gas market has mutated: it has ceased to be a simple raw material and has become a “high-speed financial asset” dominated by volatility. Added to this is that the continent has changed its dependency of Russian gas pipelines by methane tankers from the US and Qatar, today facing unusually low gas stores. The spark that set the markets on fire jumped on March 2, 2026. The state-owned company QatarEnergy issued a statement announcing the cessation of production of LNG and associated products after suffering military attacks on its strategic facilities in Ras Laffan and the industrial city of Mesaieed. According to the Qatari Ministry of Defense collected by Al Jazeerathe country was attacked by drones launched from Iran. One hit a water tank in Mesaieed and another hit an energy facility in Ras Laffan. Although the toll is about 20 injured and “minimal damage” after a rain of dozens of drones and missiles against the country, the decision to paralyze operations in Ras Laffan – which manages a capacity of 77 million tons per year—has been devastating. The chaos, however, not limited to Qatar. We are facing a regional domino effect. Saudi Arabia has been forced to temporarily close units of its giant Ras Tanura refinery after Iranian drones were intercepted. In parallel, Iraq has stopped the flow of a key pipeline to Türkiye for security reasons, and the Israeli government has ordered Chevron to halt production from its huge Leviathan gas field. The energy system faces a logistical problem There are some 150 ships paralyzed in the areawhich means an effective blockade of the Strait of Hormuzthe bottleneck through which a fifth of the world’s maritime oil and gas trade transits. The situation is so serious that, according to the Financial Timeshalf of the world’s largest marine insurers will suspend their war risk coverage in the area, completely deterring cargo ships. But the paralysis of QatarEnergy has a deeper reading. For geopolitical analyst Bachar El-Halabi, consulted through their social networksthis is not just a supply shock, but a clever maneuver. By stopping production, Doha internationalizes the conflict: sends the message that it will not be a simple passive game board and puts the pressure directly on its partners in Washington, Europe and Asia. The macroeconomic impact is already visible. From the British environment They point to widespread falls in the stock markets -with the Stoxx Europe 600 losing almost 2%— and a flight of investors towards gold. As stated by Simone Tagliapietra, analyst at the Bruegel think tank cited by Bloomberg: “The threat to security of supply is immediate (…) we are facing a new scenario.” So, is the price of gas going to rise? The market’s immediate reaction has been one of true panic. The reference gas contract in Europe (Dutch TTF) recorded intraday increases of more than 50%. According to data collected by The Economistthe megawatt hour jumped sharply from below 40 euros up to touching 47.5 euros. At the same time, Brent oil rose 9%, hovering around $80 per barrel. The European citizen might ask: “If only 10% of the LNG that reaches Europe passes through the Strait of Hormuz, why does it affect us so much?” The energy expert Joaquín Coronado sums it up perfectly: Gas markets do not operate based on isolated physical volumes, but rather based on global prices. If Asia suddenly loses the Qatari tap, it will compete fiercely with checkbook against Europe for shipments from the United States or Africa. In fact, Coronado warns that the consulting firm ICIS projects that a closure 90 days in Hormuz would raise the TTF up to €92/MWh. However, in the midst of the noise, analytical voices ask for calm. The columnist of Bloomberg Javier Blas he remembered on his social networkssupported by the economic journalist Miquel Roig, who although a 45% rise is scary in the headlines, the current ones €46/MWh They are nothing compared to the absolute record of €345/MWh in the summer of 2022. As Blas states: “As always, putting the wide angle lens on helps.” Although we are far from historical highs, the current situation finds Europe unprotected. Joaquin Coronado provides worrying information: European gas storages are at 30%7.5 points below the 2025 level. In Xataka we explain it with the phenomenon of backwardation: since gas in the future was cheaper than current gas, it was not worth it for companies to fill their warehouses. This price spike has direct and immediate consequences. Crowned already advance that the price of electricity in the Spanish wholesale market (OMIE) will reach €106.6/MWh in tomorrow’s peak hours. For intensive industries (such as chemicals, fertilizers or ceramics), the profitability threshold usually is among the 50 and 60 €/MWh. If prices stagnate there, we could see a new wave of factory closures and a rebound in inflation. On this board, Spain lives its own paradox. Although it has regasification plants and ships on its coasts, it functions as an “energy island.” Our country lacks sufficient interconnections (pipes through the Pyrenees) to pump all that gas to Germany or Central Europe, preventing Spain from serving as a total lifeline for the continent. The closure of the QatarEnergy plant serves as a stark reminder of current energy geopolitics. Europe believed it had shielded its system by becoming independent of piped gas from Russia, but it simply has replaced one vulnerability with another: dependence on sea routes and American and Qatari … Read more

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz already points to gasoline at two euros/liter

by

Unpredictable, unexpected and extreme impact. There are three characteristics that define what Nassim TalebLebanese philosopher, mathematician and essayist, pointed out to explain the “black swan theory”. With it he tries to explain what position to take in the face of such an inexplicable event of which we cannot understand its consequences. The theory takes its cue from the poet Juvenal, who once spoke of “a rare bird on earth, and very similar to a black swan“, a phrase that makes it clear that there was a time when it was believed that the swan, invariably, must be white because a black one had never been discovered. The phrase, in fact, was popular in England centuries ago. For Western Europe, swans were white. Spot. But a Dutch expedition at the end of the 17th century in Australia found that the black swan did indeed exist, which forever changed the knowledge we had on this subject. It was an unexpected, unpredictable event whose impact was extreme in its branch. Nacho Rabadán, general director of CEEES (Spanish Confederation of Service Station Employers), the most representative association of the sector, rescues this theory to point out what can happen with a constant block of the Strait of Hormuz. “Whenever there are problems in the Middle East, there is speculation about a possible closure of the Strait of Hormuz and whenever that possibility is on the table, the price of oil rises. If Hormuz were really closed, we would be talking about a black swan, there would be an immediate and violent reaction in the price of oil and we would be in a scenario similar to that of the spring of 2022 with the invasion of Ukraine,” Rabadán explains to ABC. Gasoline at two euros/liter If the prices of the first days of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine are reached, we would be talking about gasoline at a sustained price of between 1.80 and 2.00 euros/liter. At that time, Europe got to work to contain the impact on homes, mitigated in our country with one of subsidy of 20 cents/liter that did not end up stopping the rise in price and which, in fact, came to be used as means to attract clients according to the CNMC. Those days when OPEC maneuvered to keep the price of oil above $80/barrel seems far away. It even reached $130/barrel. But now they seem more alive than ever. The Strait of Hormuz is a key passage for energy for much of the world. It is an enclave of high tension, where the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf narrow to leave just a passage of between 60 and 100 kilometers for ships loaded with oil. For Iran, Oman, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait, controlling the passage of ships is key. since two weeksthe traffic is committed and with the attack by the United States and Israel on Iranand the country’s response to neighboring countries with US bases, the closure seems confirmed. A closure that has caught some 240 ships stopped in the middle of a historic traffic jam. Of them, Bloomberg The number of detained ships loaded with the precious commodity is estimated at 40 supertankers. The impact on the oil futures market was immediate once the attack became known but, for now, the price per barrel is close to 73 euros/unit (a few days ago it was around 65 dollars/barrel). The impact should be felt in the coming days if the fight becomes entrenched and Hormuz remains closed. For now, the price of gasoline has already risen slightly but the figures we find at the pumps will be, in the opinion of analystsmuch lower than we can expect in a few days. With the Ukrainian War and the Russia’s exit from the market (legal) of fuel, the price of gasoline shot up to 2.15 euros/liter and diesel to 2.10 euros/liter. The fear, of course, is not that only the price of fuel will skyrocket. Increasing its price impacts a general rise in prices since transportation is much more expensive. In fact, indirectly, not only the closure of Hormuz to the passage of oil can make products more expensive. Have to border the entire African coast to reach Europe to avoid attacks by some and others would raise the final bill. Both because of the extra fuel spent and the higher cost of keeping a ship traveling for more than 10 days, which extends the route in traffic between Asia and Europe. Photo | Marek Studzinski and Glenn Fawcett, Gieling, Rob In Xataka | Spain was supposed to raise diesel in 2026. It was supposed

a bizarre vote in Congress leaves the closure intact

by

What started as a political maneuver by the Popular Party to open the door to prolonging the life of Spanish nuclear power plants ended up becoming one of the tightest and most surprising votes of the legislature. The amendment that sought to suppress the closing dates of Almaraz, Ascó and Cofrentes was rejected by a single vote, a minimal difference that was only possible thanks to the – unexpected – abstention of Junts. The result was 171 votes in favor – PP, Vox and UPN -, 171 against and seven abstentions from Junts, who shot down the proposal. The Government breathed a sigh of relief, although the underlying debate—what to do with nuclear energy at the height of electricity demand—remains more open than ever. Congress stops the PP nuclear amendment. The amendment introduced by the PP in the Sustainable Mobility Law It intended to eliminate from the ministerial orders the dates for the definitive cessation of operation of the Almaraz, Ascó and Cofrentes plants. With this, the popular parties sought to open the door to possible extensions, especially at a time when the owners of Almaraz They have already formally requested extend its useful life until 2030. According to El PaísJunts left the vote in suspense until the last moment, leaving it unclear whether they would vote with the PP and Vox or support the Government. His abstention finally tipped the balance. The movement was even surprising due to the political context: it came just 24 hours after a tough confrontation between Míriam Nogueras and Pedro Sánchez, in which the Junts spokesperson accused the president of being “cynical and hypocritical.” However, in the vote the strategy was different because Catalonia consumes more electricity from nuclear origin than any other community. What does this rejection really mean? Although politically the vote had a huge impact, technically things remain more or less the same. The amendment would not have automatically extended the life of the plants, but it would have modified ministerial orders without requiring the report of the Nuclear Safety Council (CSN), a mandatory requirement by law. Besides, They remembered a precedent: In 2012, the PP itself demanded this report when it reopened the discussion on the Garoña plant. The tension was amplified because the debate had no direct relationship with the Mobility Law, a regulation linked to the receipt of 10,000 million euros of European funds, as various media emphasize. The PP amendment thus introduced an energy element in a text on sustainable mobility, which increased unrest among the Government’s partners. So, is the nuclear shutdown schedule still valid? Yes. With the fall of the amendment, the calendar agreed in 2019 between the Government, Enresa and the electricity companies remains intact. The calendar, as we have already explainedit looks like this: Almaraz I: closure in 2027 Almaraz II: 2028 Chests: 2030 Ascó I and II: between 2030 and 2032 Vandellós II and Trillo: until 2035 However, the fact that the calendar is still standing does not mean that an extension is ruled out. Contrary to what it may seem, the rejection of the amendment does not prevent companies from requesting an extension nor does it block the Government from authorizing it. As the Executive himself recalled —as cited by El País—: “The right to request an extension is not created by a ministerial order, but by current regulations.” In fact, as mentioned above, Iberdrola, Endesa and Naturgy have already formally requested that Almaraz remains operational until 2030. Administrative clash. The real problem is technical and bureaucratic. According to The Independentthe bureaucratic procedure has been crossed unexpectedly: the CSN can take up to a year to issue its report, but the regulations force the plant to request closure in March 2026, if the calendar is not reviewed before. That means Almaraz could be asking to close while the CSN evaluates whether it can continue operating. A scenario that no one thought of in 2019 and that adds more uncertainty to the nuclear transition. Everything that nuclear encompasses. Added to this is the Government’s position. The Minister for the Ecological Transition, Sara Aagesen, has reiterated on several occasions the three red lines of the Executive, that the expansion does not entail costs for citizens, guarantee of nuclear safety and security of supply. However, these three conditions clash precisely with the diagnosis that they make the electric ones: operating the plants beyond 2027 with the current tax burden is economically unviable if the market does not exceed €65-70/MWh. The expected prices are around 55, so Iberdrola and Endesa insist that keeping the nuclear park open requires alleviating taxes that, according to the Ministry, would end up having an impact on consumers’ bills. The economic debate does not end there. Enresa’s fund for the dismantling of the plants only covers 43% of the real cost. According to figures that we have had access to in Xatakathere is a hole of 11.6 billion euros not yet financed, a fact that overrides any discussion about deadlines and extensions Can Spain do without nuclear power? The underlying issue is no longer political, but technical. Spain wants to build a 100% renewable system, but it has yet to be demonstrated that the network can sustain that model without the stability that nuclear energy provides. The new digital systems that must replace inertia of the reactors are still in the testing phase, and the CNMC has detected inconsistencies in the frequency and voltage control procedures. In parallel, regions with strong industrial and digital growth—such as Aragon, which is experiencing a data center boom—warn that the network is practically at the limit. Simply put: companies ask for time; The territories ask for certainties; The Government asks for guarantees. An official closure, but an open debate. Congress has closed the door to the PP’s fast track, but it has not closed the nuclear debate. On paper, the calendar remains intact; In practice, the transition coexists with technical tensions, industrial interests and territories that fear what will come next. The question … Read more

Citizens were not supposed to pay the closure of the nuclear, but there is already a hole of 11,600 euros on the bill

by

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 Xataka | The largest nuclear fusion project on the planet has survived the setbacks. This is the date on which Iter should be ready

Spain thought its position regarding the closure of nuclear. That has just changed

by

The debate on a possible extension of nuclear plants has returned to the scene and has turned on the media focus. The electricity insists on lengthening their operation beyond the expected, but the executive denies that formal negotiations are being maintained and refers to the conditions that already set as essential. A letter and three conditions. Iberdrola and Endesa sent a joint letter to the government will make more or less a month. In it, they proposed to reopen the debate on the progressive closure of the nuclear park – which contemplates the shutdown of the Seven reactors between 2027 and 2035– With the argument that maintaining operational some centrals would reduce the cost of electricity for consumers. According to the countrythe Government responded by another letter signed by the Ecological Transition Minister, Sara Aagesen, opening to assess the proposal under three immovable conditions: that there is no additional cost for citizens, that the security of the supply is guaranteed and that the plants comply with the standards of the Nuclear Safety Council. So far they “dialogue.” According to eldiario.esthe government considers the letter of electricity as a declaration of intentions, not a formal request. In addition, Naturgy and EDP – also minority owners of some plants – did not sign the document, which leaves Iberdrola and Endesa alone. The debate intensifies. The situation is complex for a primary reason that is not technical, but the economic viability of nuclear. As the confidential explainedelectricity consider that operating with the current fiscal charge is unfeasible if the market price does not exceed € 65-70/MWh. In contrast, projected prices are around € 55/MWh by 2030. In this context, the Endesa CEO, José Bogas, raises the government a fiscal reduction, especially autonomic taxes (such as the one already eliminated in the Valencian Community) and the Enresa rate, which finances the dismantling of the centrals and waste management. However, according to the miteco, this fiscal reduction would involve damage to citizens, and therefore clashes frontally with their red lines. Almaraz, the first thermometer. The immediate focus is at the Almaraz nuclear power plant (Cáceres), whose first reactor must close in November 2027 and the second in October 2028. Iberdrola, Endesa and Naturgy – his three owners – have not yet met to approve the necessary investments that would allow their operation beyond those dates. The meeting scheduled for June has not been held, and sector sources admit that it will not occur before September. Meanwhile, companies prepare a new proposal that, According to El Confidencialcould be presented after summer at a meeting not yet confirmed with Minister Aagesen. The plan would be to offer a tax reduction in exchange for prolonging the activity of some centrals until 2030. However, the Ministry insists: if the conditions do not change, there will be no negotiation. A hot topic in Congress. The debate is more than served from the political field. On the one hand, the Popular Party preparing one Law proposition to extend the life of nuclear. The proposal would have the support of several regional governments of the PP – as Extremadura and Community Valencian – and the parliamentary support of Junts and ERC, which have shown flexibility in Congress in relation to the revision of the nuclear calendar. However, the government has reaffirmed its position. As El Confidencial recalledPresident Pedro Sánchez was bluntly in Congress last May, accusing PP and Vox of acting as “amateur lobists” of the electric. “If companies want to keep the centrals open, they pay them, not the citizens,” he settled. Facing an ambivalent European framework. In addition, the legal position of nuclear energy in the EU adds complexity, since European regulations do not consider nuclear energy as a renewable source. This is established by Directive 2018/2001 (Red II), a vision that has also adopted Spanish legislation. However, in 2022, the European Commission took a partial turn by including this technology, under certain conditions, In the so -called “green taxonomy”next to the natural gas. This classification allows certain nuclear investments to be labeled as sustainable from the climate point of view. As Miguel Huarte expanded has indicatedthis places the nuclear in a normative gray area: it is not renewable, but free of emission in its operation. And while France or Belgium have already chosen to extend their atomic parks, Spain maintains the opposite course. Accelerating another route. At the same time, the miteco has processed this July 31 a new Royal Decree by urgent route to reinforce the electrical system. As you have indicated in a press releaseit is a technical standard that does not directly address the nuclear calendar, but it does signal to a reinforcement of the electrical system by means of supervision, electrification of the demand and promotion of energy storage. Among other measures, the proposal increases the technical control of Electricity and CNMC, promotes renewable hybridization with storage systems and limits speculation on connection points. Although the text does not mention the nuclear, it reinforces the idea that the government bet remains clear: moving towards a 100% renewable mix. A door ajar. The crossing of cards between electric and government has served more to draw red lines than to open doors. What is played, beyond the kilowatt, is the country’s energy model: one where renewables are implacable and nuclear tries to scratch time under the promise of stability. But as well He has pointed the newspaper.Without a formal proposal and without an explicit resignation to tax privileges, electricity will continue to wait at the gates of a ministry that, for now, remains firm: either they meet the conditions, or the closing calendar will continue its course. The future of Almaraz – and perhaps that of the entire nuclear park – will be decided, if, after summer. And with many more letters even to play. Image | Foronuclear Xataka | Spain was supposed to have a “antiapagones” plan. It has encountered an insurmountable obstacle: politics

After the blackout, the government defended the nuclear closure because “in Spain there is no uranium.” Reality is more complicated

by

The question of uranium has returned to the forefront after the president of the Government affirm that “in Spain there is no uranium and therefore we will have to import it.” Although Spain has large uranium deposits, reality is always more complicated than the usual black or white policy. The second European country with more uranium. Spain has between 25,000 and 30,000 tons of uranium, “the second most important reserves of the European Union,” According to the geologist Jesús Martínez Frías. Both the ‘Red Book’ of the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) as the National Geographic Institute (IGN) indicate the existence of resources with the possibility of exploitation in Spanish territory, mainly in the province of Salamanca. Why they stopped exploding. Spain had uranium mining, but The last mine closed in 2000 for the “exhaustion of economically exploitable mining resources”, according to the Ministry for Ecological Transition. The Spanish Nuclear Society (SNE) said that production costs had exceeded 30% market prices, which made its continuity unfeasible. Two decades later, the Law 7/2021 of climate change and energy transition Truncó any new attempt To exploit the deposits: “Due to their prejudices, their cost will not be granted new exploration, research or concessions of exploitation of radioactive minerals, nor will new authorization requests be admitted.” Environmental problems. The risk of radioactive water contamination is another elephant in the room. A study Posted by Environmental Pollution In 2018 he documented “much higher” uranium concentrations than background geochemical levels near old mines abandoned in Salamanca. The levels in the soil ranged between 207.2 and 542.4 mg kg⁻¹, when the natural background levels are 29.8 mg kg⁻¹ for granite and 71.2 mg kg⁻¹ for slate. The study proposed environmental restoration measures, such as reforestation, in areas close to old farms. They are not entirely unfeasible. The political landscape has changed with the European Union in search of energy sovereignty and resources. The economic landscape too. With The price of upward uraniumthe Berkeley Minera company has a revived interest in its Retortillo project. The request for exploitation of this deposit was delivered before Law 7/2021 applied, but the Nuclear Safety Council also issued An unfavorable environmental report for “the low reliability and the high uncertainties of security analysis in geotechnical and hydrogeological aspects.” Uranium you have to enrich it. Although there was a political change that leads to the reactivation of Retry, the uranium that is extracted from the earth (natural uranium) barely contains 0.7% of Uranium-235, the necessary physiognable isotope for most nuclear reactors. It would be necessary to enrich uranium, a process that consists in increasing the concentration of uranium-235 to 3-5% levels for light water reactors, which are the most common. Spain does not have its own high -scale enriched uranium, or facilities in which to enrich uranium at the industrial level for use as fuel in nuclear centrals. Can Spain enrich uranium? Spain had the capacity to produce uranium concentrates (in the form of yellow cakes or Yellowcakes), But obtaining enriched uranium is a subsequent, technologically more complex and expensive process, dominated by a few countries. Today, 60% He leaves Russia and China. ENUSA (the national uranium company) already had difficulty replacing Russian enriched uranium after Commercial vetoes for the Ukraine War. Enriching it would be a major challenge. A change of direction. In the new geopolitical context, the European Union is promoting the reactivation of mining to ensure a sovereign supply of key materials for energy transition and defense. Spain is rich in Uranium, but also in resources such as copper, which is the second EU producer. Besides, It has lithiumcobalt, Coltán and possible lower land deposits. Seven of the 47 new Strategic Mining Projects promoted by the EU They will be developed in Spainalthough most face the rejection of environmental organizations for its environmental impact, such as the lithium mine in Cáceres. The epicenter of the debate. Discussions on Spanish uranium are a broader reflex of tensions: the strategic autonomy of resources, the imperatives of the energy transition, environmental protection and social acceptance of mining activity. In the end, the epicenter of the debate is the high cost of building and maintaining traditional nuclear plants in the face of renewable energy sources, of which Spain is world power. Only last year, Spain produced 148,999 GWh of renewable energy, 56.8% of Mix. If the blackout was A notice that the electricity is not prepared To stabilize large renewable energy fluctuations, what touches is wondering what are the investments in storage, investors, interconnections and energy sources alternative to pollutants combined cycles of gas to avoid another blackout. Everything is said regarding the closure of nuclear plants or the extraction of uranium in Spain, but the solar industry will not go anywhere. Image | Tecnatom In Xataka | In Salamanca there is a high -tech nuclear fuel bars factory that exports to all of Europe: we have visited it

tariffs, refinery closure and overproduction

by

Energy expert Javier Blas He has shown Through the social network X (old Twitter) as the price of Brent barrel, it has suffered one of its greatest falls in recent decades. In just two days, I know It has collapsed $ 10.4, Brent barrel at $ 65.14. This strong descent reminds other historical falls such as the Ukraine War in 2022, the Covid-19 Pandemia and the Price War in Saudi Arabia in 2020, the 2008 global financial crisis and the Gulf War in 1991. Short. According to has had access Reuterscrude oil has been driven by The announcement of tariffs by US President Donald Trump. These tariff measures, They have given much to talkThey have generated fears about global economic growth and energy demand. A blow after another. In the last years of fluctuations and political uncertainty, we must add the closure of refineries. As has advanced Oilpriceone in five global refineries faces closing risk, despite the fact that the demand for fuel is still increasing. This imbalance between supply and infrastructure is generating additional tensions in the market. In addition, operators seem to have lost confidence in a robust and sustained recovery of energy consumption, which has led to massive positions of positions in futures markets. OPEC+ continues on the same path. In recent statements They have decided Accelerate its production increase schedule, adding 441,000 barrels per day in May, as part of one to gradually add 2.2 million barrels per day to the market. This increase in crude could put even more down pressure on oil prices, also taking into account Kazakhstan that does not stop producing. From the New York Timessome analysts have interpreted this movement as a gesture towards Trump, who seeks to reduce fuel prices, while others see them as a way to prevent members from exceeding their production quotas. A downward trend? This whole situation may be maintained in the short term. On the one hand, tariffs and overproduction of the OPEC+ can make the price continue. On the other hand, the closure of some refineries could keep the prices of derived products, such as gasoline and diesel. Thus, although the price of crude is still low, the imbalances in supply and infrastructure could maintain tensions in the energy market. The coming months will be crucial to determine whether this fall is a temporary anomaly or a prolonged trend. Image | Unspash Xataka | The apparently irresoluble oil dilemma: OPEC+ wants to produce much more without sinking prices

that the closure of the centrals rises the light of the light

by

The Government of Spain agreed a stepped blackout of nuclear centrals between 2027 and 2035. However, the debate that seemed settled in 2019 has reopened with many actors involved. Battle The epicenter of the problem It started with the Almaraz Centralsince it is the first to close within two years according to the agreed calendar. However, electricity, government, opposition and population have opened the debate about whether to continue with the closing plan or extend the useful life of nuclear plants. A renegotiation. Electric companies (Iberdrola, Endesa, Naturgy and EDP) are confronted with both each other and with the central government about the closure of nuclear plants. On the one hand, Iberdrola and Endesa are looking for how to obtain more favorable conditions that allow them to keep the nuclear power plants operational without incurring economic losses, According to eldiario.es. In addition, they add that there is an increase in demand for data centers and must ensure the stability of the supply, because otherwise the light could be increased by up to 25%. On the other hand, the rest of the electricity, such as Naturgy and EDP, have shown less interest in prolonging the useful life of nuclear, since they have adjusted down the accounting value of their assets in this sector, how have explained expanding. The main problem is multiprophity, since any extension requires unanimity among the partners of each plant. To unlock the situation, companies explore solutions such as a 2-3-year mini-programs or the exchange of assets, where companies would reorganize the ownership of the centrals so that there are fewer partners in each plant, which would facilitate decision making. While the government … It continues with the same position that the closure must follow the agreed calendar of 2019, but has shown some flexibility. According to expansionthe Ministry of Ecological Transition has indicated that any renegotiation of the closure of Almaraz or other plants is only possible if electricity agrees first between them. The voices in favor. As we report in Xatakathe Congress of Deputies approved a non -law proposition to open the possibility of extending nuclear centrals. The initiative, presented by the Popular Party came forward with the support of Vox and a deputy of UPN, in addition to the abstention of Junts and ERC. Of course, since it is a non -binding figure, its approval does not entail any change in the formalized closing calendar six years ago, but it does reflect the position of the camera. The commitment to renewable. The National Integrated Energy and Climate Plan (PNIEC 2023-2030) has established that in five years 81% of electricity with renewable sources and renewable sources must be generated is close to getting it. In the last two months, according to the data provided by Electric Red of Spain (REE)nuclear energy has represented 20% of the total electricity generation. This percentage has increased due to the fall in solar energy production. This change in the energy panorama reopens the debate on the need for a continuous energy source, especially given the growing energy consumption of data centers driven by artificial intelligencethat require constant and stable supply. On the other hand, another question opens, in terms of the use of energy storage that could be one of the alternatives, but in the country all that surplus of renewable energy It is taking place in the swamps. The future. While the debate on the future of nuclear energy in Spain is still open, investigations have begun to take steps towards nuclear fusion. The Rodas project, which seeks to advance in this emerging technology, is presented as a new window within the energy sector, with the aim of developing a clean and practically inexhaustible energy source, As we have highlighted in Xataka. However, there is still a way to go and much to try before the nuclear fusion becomes A large -scale viable alternative. Image | FROBLES Xataka | Ascó and Almaraz nuclear power plants will close in six years. Its US twins just renewed up to 2060

1,300 flights affected by the closure of the largest airport in Europe

by

“A fire in an electrical substation that supplies the airport.” It is the reason, as reported by the heatow airport authorities themselves On its website and in the official accounts of social networks as x. From the airport they recommend not to go to their facilities and get in touch with the airlines if you wanted to take a flight today to find a solution to it. Heidi Alexander, Minister of Transportation, has also asked travelers who do not go to the facilities: “I am receiving updates about the situation in development at Heathrow Airport. I am grateful for emergency services that are responding to the fire, and National Grid for working to restore energy from the airport and households. He urges passengers who do not travel to the airport and contact their airline” The airport is the largest in Europe. The last 2024 closed the year with a traveler record. In total it is estimated that they went through its facilities 83.9 million people. A figure far higher than that registered in 2019, the best year until then with 80.9 million travelers. According to BBCit is estimated that 1,351 flights can be canceled throughout the day. The consequences will be extended inside and outside our continent and has a special impact on our country. New York, Dubai, Doha and Los Angeles are the main journeys at the London airport. Dublin sneaks like the fourth city that has the most transfer with Heatrow and the sixth city and the second European is Madrid. From AENA They have already reported that 54 flights with origin or destination within our country will be affected today. Journeys that are distributed throughout the following cities: Madrid: 29 flights Barcelona: 19 flights Malaga: 2 flights South Tenerife: 2 flights Valencia: 2 flights The fire that affects the airport has had no implications exclusively in its facilities. According to BBC16,300 homes have also run out of electricity and 150 people have had to be evacuated. At the moment, the cuasas of the fire are unknown. All connections affected by the Heatrow Fire. Source: Flightradar24 A logistics challenge Sean Dilley, a journalist specialized in transport of the British media, points out that the fire has created a logistics challenge that will be extended throughout the world. Air traffic is calculated to the millimeter to always keep in mind how many flights are in the air and the capacity on land. Close the largest airport in Europe It forces the network to assume that challenge. He explains that Gatwick (also in London) will absorb the greatest amount of flights that can but that its capacity is almost at the limit. The same goes for Stansted and Luton. At the moment, in The Guardian They report that Stansted has not received requests to accept flights to Heatrow. A spokesman for it has indicated that: “London Stansted is currently operating normally, we have the capacity for a small number of deviations, but so far we have not received any request.” Another option that is being valued, according to Dilley, is to divert flights to Manchester and relocate passengers by train. And to distribute long -distance flights on the network, make them terrric in Schipol (Amsterdam) or Frankfurt that are also among the largest airports on the continent. In The Guardian They also focus on the problem of Fuel supply which can be generated in airports that accept the detour of some of the trips with original destination in Heatow. And to current delays and cancellations, we must add those that can be generated in the next few days until all flights have been made. Although the airport opened normally tomorrow, Saturday, March 22, the delays are expected to accumulate. Photo | Heatow Airport In Xataka | The failure that has demonstrated the fragility of airports around the world: Crowdstrike and a dramatic day in the middle of summer

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.