Mathieu Bihet (Liege, 1991) is the Minister of Energy of the Belgian Government, leading the determined commitment that the coalition government led by Bart de Wever has made to nuclear energy. He aims to acquire all the country's facilities, extend their lifespan, and even restart those currently inactive. The liberal politician insists that this is the best solution for the country from an economic, productive, and even climatic perspective. He believes that the EU should follow the same path.
What is the position of the Belgian Government regarding nuclear energy? What measures does it want to implement in the negotiations with Engie?
Belgium has a deep nuclear history. Since the 1950s, we have developed almost the entire civil nuclear value chain in our country. The turning point came with the law of January 31, 2003, which organized the phased exit from nuclear energy and prohibited any new construction. The current government has opted for a new direction. The negotiations focus on the potential acquisition of all nuclear activities of Engie. This comprehensive acquisition would include the entire nuclear park, the affected personnel, and all nuclear subsidiaries.
Is the goal to halt and reverse the nuclear phase-out?
The challenge we face is to rebuild everything after the attempt to destroy the nuclear sector in the past. Our government agreement foresees both the extension of as many existing units as possible and the development of new capacities.
Will the currently shut down plants be restarted?
We do not exclude any possibility regarding the currently stopped units. Reactivating existing infrastructure can have advantages in terms of timing and costs. Extending the lifespan of a nuclear unit is the least costly option for producing decarbonized electricity. However, such a decision must be based on an extremely rigorous technical, industrial, and financial analysis. That is precisely the aim of the ongoing due diligence. Meanwhile, dismantling activities have been suspended in all stopped units.
Why are you promoting nuclear energy?
Electricity demand in Belgium is expected to more than double by 2050, especially due to the electrification of industry, transportation, and heating. Our current capacities will not be sufficient to meet this evolution. If we do not act now, we risk facing shortages, sustained price increases, and increased dependence on foreign sources. Relying on natural gas supply, whether from Russia, the United States, or the Middle East, poses a significant risk. Not to mention the climate impact. Additionally, Belgium is not particularly suited for the development of renewable energies, which tend to be intermittent. For all these reasons, nuclear energy is the logical solution. The time for naivety and inaction is over. The time for clarity has come.
What benefits do you expect for citizens and businesses?
Firstly, a benefit in terms of sovereignty and autonomy. Recent crises have shown how energy dependence can weaken our economies and citizens. Secondly, an economic and industrial benefit. Nuclear energy is a sector of excellence that sustains thousands of highly skilled jobs in Belgium. It also serves as an important tool to attract industrial investments and provide greater visibility to electro-intensive companies that require stable and competitive electricity. There is also a direct benefit for citizens: more stable and secure energy helps better protect households from price crises and supply issues. Furthermore, nuclear energy is an ally to our climate goals, especially for future generations.
There is also growing support for nuclear energy from the European Commission. Is this the path Europe should follow?
Europe is gradually returning to a more pragmatic approach to its energy policy. Geopolitical crises, energy price volatility, and sovereignty challenges have profoundly changed the perception of nuclear energy. The anti-nuclear ideology has collided with the wall of reality and facts, and I believe Belgium is regaining that clarity.
How do you assess the voices that remain critical of nuclear energy? Is it a dangerous energy source?
Purely catastrophic discourses no longer correspond to the current reality of the nuclear sector. Safety standards have evolved significantly, especially in Europe, where power plants are subject to extremely strict controls. Nuclear energy is now part of the few sources capable of massively producing continuous and manageable decarbonized electricity.
The Spanish Government is moving forward with its nuclear phase-out. Do you think such a decision could end up harming consumers and businesses? Could it lead to a loss of economic competitiveness?
Each state is free to define its own energy mix based on its geography, economic structure, natural resources, and political decisions. It is not for me to comment on the decisions made by my colleagues. Spain's situation is also different from Belgium's. Spain has exceptional solar potential and a lower population density, which naturally influences its energy strategy. But the debate should not be ideological. The central issue is supply security, economic competitiveness, and climate goals. For an industrialized country, ensuring available, decarbonized, and affordable energy is essential for both households and businesses.