March 29, 2026, 1:05 p.mMarch 29, 2026, 1:05 p.m
Switzerland can produce enough electricity in winter even without new nuclear power plants. This is the conclusion reached by 50 energy experts from Axpo in a new study. But it doesn’t work without effort. Solar and especially wind power capacity must be expanded on a large scale.
In a second scenario, which is “not a priority” for Axpo, the study describes the case in which Switzerland builds two new nuclear power plants. What is easy to write is a Herculean task to implement. After finding a location, a planning phase and the preparation of various reports, decades of delays and skyrocketing costs during construction are not the exception, they are the rule. This is shown by the examples of nuclear power plants in Europe that are currently under construction or have recently been completed.
Mochovce-3, Slovakia
The Mochovce nuclear power plant can account for 70 percent of Slovakia’s electricity consumption.
Depending on the source, work on units 3 and 4 of the Mochovce nuclear power plant began in 1985 or 1986. In 1992, work came to a standstill for the first time – there was a lack of money. Only 16 years later, in November 2008, with new owners, construction was started again. In the meantime, a temporary protective cover had prevented the construction site from disintegrating.
Block 3 should have gone online in 2013. Again, the planning was overly optimistic and after another change in ownership, the unit went online in January 2023. Construction of the fourth reactor also ended in 2024. This is currently in a test phase.
Although both new blocks have only recently become functional, they are already considered obsolete. This is because they lack common security features today. The long list of defects also includes the emergency generators. Like the Austrian environmental protection organization Global 2000 revealed, one of the over 30-year-old power generation machines exploded during a safety test (see video above).
The second planning attempt is taken into account. The original commissioning was planned for the 1990s.
Olkiluoto-3, Finland
The two older boiling water reactors in the foreground, the EPR reactor behind them.Image: Wikimedia Commons
There have been two boiling water reactors on the narrow island of Olkiluoto in the Gulf of Bothnia since the 1970s. They were supplemented by a pressurized water reactor of the EPR (European Pressurized Water Reactor) type. Construction began in 2007 and should have been completed in 2009. In fact, it lasted until 2022. The client, TVO (a Finnish nuclear power plant company) and the company involved in the implementation, Areva (a conglomerate made up of the French Framatome and Siemens), got into a fight because of the delays – and sued each other.
Instead of the original 3 billion euros, the completion of the first EPR type nuclear power plant cost 11 billion euros. Because Areva also belonged to the French state at the time, France had to pay for some of the shortcomings. Olkiluoto became a case for French politics.
After another series of breakdowns, the third unit of the Olkiluoto nuclear power plant finally went online in 2023. The aftermath still reverberates today in various committees and court cases – which is why the construction of a planned fourth reactor was postponed until further notice.
Flamanville-3, France
Image: X00217
All good things come in threes? This saying does not seem to apply, at least for reactor blocks. Flamanville-3 also became a disaster. And again Areva was involved.
Construction has been going on in Flamanville since 2007. In 2012, the Italian company Enel, which had a 12.5 percent stake in the new reactor, expanded – and demanded compensation. It was a reaction to the fact that costs continued to rise – and there was no end to the construction activity in sight. Even more explosive than the exit was that Enel predicted that Flamanville-3 would never be able to be maintained profitably. Electricity generation costs of 7 – 10 cents/kWh were reported.
Problems with steel, valves, welding and a lack of environmental impact reports further delayed completion. Trial operation officially began in September 2024. This is in the knowledge that Flamanville-3 will have to be shut down again as early as 2026. The reactor’s concrete lid is prone to cracking and needs to be replaced. The material testing had discovered steel of inadequate quality.
Like the completion date, the costs are not that easy to quantify. The construction alone amounted to 13 billion euros. But that’s not even half of the actual total cost of the project. These amount to according to the French Court of Auditors 27.5 million euros.
Only the construction costs and not the total costs are taken into account.
Hinkley Point C1 & C2, UK
Image: Getty Images Europe
Large-scale Franco-British projects can work. The over 50 kilometer long train tunnel under the English Channel was built within seven years (1987–1993) – despite enormous technical difficulties. But incorrect calculations were also made when the Eurotunnel was built. The costs doubled and brought the operators to the brink of ruin. Thanks to debt relief and increasing popularity, the situation later eased – but only slowly. In 2025, the Eurotunnel operator Getlink posted a profit of over 300 million euros.
However, it is doubted that the new nuclear power plant on the Hinkley Point headland in the Bristol Channel could become profitable at some point. The two reactors were already planned with a very high price tag. Since then, however, costs have exploded.
Once again involved: the French energy companies EDF and Areva and the Chinese companies CGN and CNNC. The construction would have cost 19 billion euros and should have been completed by 2023.
So far only Areva has come to an end. Because of excessive debt, France had to restructure the state-owned company. Today it is called Orano.
In order not to fall into a debt trap again, the future operators of C1 & C2 were granted various guarantees – including a generous feed-in tariff including inflation insurance.
As in Flamanville and Olkiluoto, construction activity fell further and further behind over the years. Companies involved such as Toshiba and Engie dropped out. In 2016, the British Court of Auditors proclaimed in a damning report that taxpayers would have been much better off investing in solar and wind energy. According to findings from the University of Sussex, there is a good reason why the government continued to stick with construction – and it has nothing to do with energy production: Hinkley Point is intended to maintain and expand nuclear technical expertise. This is so that it can be used primarily for military purposes. Or how it is Guardian writes: “Electricity consumers should finance nuclear weapons via Hinkley Point C”.
One thing is clear: no reactor in the west of England will be able to start operations by 2030. And the price tag? It is currently valued at 56.6 billion.
Given the history, it is doubtful whether C1 & C2 will actually be ended in 2030
The lessons for Switzerland
The first case mentioned here is somewhat offside. In Mochovce, nuclear power plants were built according to Soviet/Russian plans. Just like four current reactors in Akkuyu, Türkiye. If Switzerland decides to build new nuclear power plants, it is unlikely that the contract will go to such a model.
However, the three problem construction sites in Finland, France and England show what difficulties our country could face. A doubling of construction times and costs seems to be the norm, even if part of the blame for the problems can be attributed to mismanagement by the companies involved. Because the construction of an EPR-type nuclear power plant in China also exceeded the cost and time frame, the design of the EPR must also be questioned. New guidelines and safety measures make the construction of new nuclear power plants even more difficult – apart from resistance from the population and delays due to objections.
But what we need anyway is a rethinking of wind energy. It lies fallow in this country. But according to the Axpo study, we need them. With or without new nuclear power plants.