Introduced by Andreas Munk Holm, this EUVC Live at GoWest series spotlights the thought leadership of policymakers, institutional investors, GPs, corporates, and public capital leaders around one defining question:
How does Europe mobilize its own capital to secure its technological future?
Across the sessions, one theme emerges repeatedly:
Europe does not lack talent.
It does not lack innovation.
It does not lack savings.
It lacks coordination.
In this episode, Jordan Billiald, Principal at IQ Capital, makes a deliberately uncomfortable argument: nuclear power is not an ideology. It is infrastructure.
Europe has made visible climate progress. Coal plants have shut down, renewables have scaled, and there are now days when grids run on 100% renewable electricity. But this progress has coincided with something quieter and more consequential: deindustrialization. Heavy industry has relocated, manufacturing has shifted, and emissions have often been outsourced rather than structurally eliminated.
Now Europe is entering a more energy-intensive phase. AI infrastructure, hyperscale data centers, electrified transport, and reshored industry are not marginal loads—they are foundational systems. They require constant, high-density electricity. Intermittency cannot anchor industrial strategy.
Wind and solar are essential. But they are intermittent by design. They fluctuate by weather, season, and geography. They can power large parts of the grid, but they struggle to provide the firm, continuous energy that industrial capacity depends on.
Nuclear remains the only proven zero-carbon baseload source operating at scale today. It is dispatchable, dense, and reliable across seasons. The argument is not nostalgic nor cultural. It is thermodynamic.
Energy security is an industrial policy. And the binding constraint may not be physics. It may be governance. Europe’s markets remain fragmented. Policy is often stop-start. Regulation is inconsistent across borders and election cycles. If Europe cannot deliver complex infrastructure at scale, sovereignty weakens.
So the question is no longer nuclear versus renewables. It is simpler than that: can Europe meet its climate, industrial, and strategic ambitions without firm, zero-carbon baseload power? If the answer is no, then nuclear is not a culture war. It is infrastructure.
The Illusion of Progress
Europe has made visible climate progress. Coal plants have shut down, renewables now represent a growing share of electricity generation, and there are days when entire countries run on 100% renewable power. These milestones are politically powerful and symbolically important.
But this progress has coincided with something less discussed: deindustrialization. Heavy industry has relocated, manufacturing capacity has shifted abroad, and in many cases, emissions have not been eliminated so much as displaced. Europe’s territorial emissions have fallen, yet parts of its industrial footprint have simply moved elsewhere.
At the same time, Europe is entering a structurally more energy-intensive phase. AI infrastructure, hyperscale data centers, electrified transport, digital manufacturing, and reshored industrial capacity all require vast amounts of constant, high-density electricity. These are not flexible loads. They are foundational systems. Intermittency cannot anchor an industrial strategy.
Baseload Is Not Optional
Wind and solar are essential. They are cost-competitive and must continue scaling rapidly. But they are intermittent by design, dependent on weather patterns and seasonal variability. Long-duration storage remains capital-intensive and not yet proven at the scale required to fully replace dispatchable generation. Grid expansion is necessary but slow, politically complex, and uneven across member states.
An industrial economy cannot rely on favorable weather conditions alone. It requires a firm capacity that operates independently of wind speeds and sunlight hours.
Nuclear remains the only proven zero-carbon baseload energy source operating at scale today. It is dispatchable, energy-dense, reliable across seasons, and stable during extreme weather events. The argument for nuclear is not ideological. It is thermodynamic. Industrial systems require continuous energy flows. Physics does not negotiate.
Energy Security Is Industrial Policy
Recent years have exposed Europe’s vulnerability to external energy shocks. Gas dependency translates directly into geopolitical leverage. Energy price spikes destabilized households and eroded industrial competitiveness. The consequences were not abstract; they were immediate and measurable.
Nuclear fuel is compact and stockpilable and represents a small fraction of total operating costs once a plant is built. In a world defined by geopolitical tension, cyber risk, and supply chain fragmentation, resilience carries economic value. Energy independence is not a slogan. It determines whether industry remains anchored domestically or migrates elsewhere.
The Real Critique: Cost and Delivery
The strongest argument against nuclear is not environmental. It is economic. Western nuclear projects have suffered from cost overruns, construction delays, regulatory complexity, and political inconsistency. These failures are real and cannot be dismissed.
But they reflect a broader European weakness. Markets are fragmented. Policy is often stop-start. Financing structures are poorly aligned with assets designed to operate for forty years or more. Regulatory processes are optimized for procedural compliance rather than delivery outcomes.
If Europe cannot deliver nuclear infrastructure, it will likely struggle to deliver any large-scale, complex infrastructure. The constraint is not physics. It is governance.
SMRs and the Standardisation Question
Small Modular Reactors are often presented as a breakthrough. Their promise is not simply their smaller size. It is repetition. Historically, industrial standardisation — not bespoke mega-projects — has reduced cost and execution risk.
If SMRs succeed, they could lower upfront capital requirements, shorten construction timelines, enable factory-based manufacturing, improve financing viability, and attract private capital participation. But this outcome depends on cross-border alignment. Twenty-seven bespoke regulatory regimes will not produce cost efficiency. Standardization must extend beyond technology to governance.
The Overlooked Lever: Life Extensions
One of the most pragmatic policies available to Europe is extending the life of existing nuclear plants. Closing operational clean baseload capacity while attempting to replace it with intermittent generation and storage is both economically and environmentally inefficient.
Preserving functioning assets is often cheaper and faster than building new capacity. Extending plant lifetimes is not an ideological position. It is disciplined asset management.
The Three Objectives Europe Must Reconcile
Europe faces three simultaneous imperatives: achieving net zero, reindustrializing and expanding economic capacity, and strengthening strategic autonomy. Each objective is energy-intensive. Each requires reliable electricity at scale.
Renewables alone may not satisfy the full spectrum of needs within the required timeframe. Storage technologies may evolve. Hydrogen may mature. Fusion may eventually arrive. But policy must be constructed around what exists today, not what might exist tomorrow.
The Strategic Question
The nuclear debate should move beyond symbolism. The relevant question is straightforward: can Europe realistically meet its climate and industrial ambitions without firm, zero-carbon baseload generation?
If the answer is no, then nuclear is not a culture war. It is infrastructure. Not nostalgia. Not dogma. Not identity. Infrastructure.
