Who will foot the bill? The opportunity cost of prioritising nuclear power over renewable energy for the case of Finland

In an effort to decarbonise their energy systems, several countries have declared intentions to triple their nuclear power capacity by 2050 at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of the Parties 28. The expansion of nuclear power includes plans for so-called small modular reactors, intended for electricity generation as well as combined heat and power production. This study aims to demonstrate the cost differences between nuclear-based and renewables-based energy-industry systems using the Finnish energy system as a case study. Four nuclear power expansion scenarios are examined, imposing 13.2 GW of nuclear power capacity into Finland’s energy supply mix, with various capacities of small- and large-scale nuclear power plants alongside combined heat and power production from small-scale nuclear plants. These nuclear tripling scenarios are compared to a reference scenario that simulates a free cost optimisation with zero emissions target. The nuclear scenarios show 71-84% higher annualised system cost of 18.4-19.7 b€ compared to a renewables-based system costing 10.7 b€ in 2050. The reference scenario does not include the installation of new nuclear power capacities, indicating that new nuclear power plants are not part of a cost-optimal system. Additionally, the energy-industry system outlined in the reference scenario possesses fewer risks compared to nuclear tripling scenarios, particularly given that SMR technologies are not yet commercially available. The findings have important implications for energy justice, especially in terms of the significant opportunity cost presented by the nuclear decarbonisation pathway. • Tripling nuclear power is more expensive than optimised renewables in Finland • Tripling nuclear power costs over 71% more, equal to 2.3% of Finland's GDP • Tripling nuclear power exacerbates local social inequalities • Renewables meet energy demand more cost-effectively and avoid nuclear risks • Timely insights for policymakers quantifying the costs of nuclear power expansion

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Energy
Published
2025-09-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2025.138630
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Integrated Energy Systems Optimization
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.19
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Who will foot the bill? The opportunity cost of prioritising nuclear power over renewable energy for the case of Finland

Björn Steigerwald, Jero Ahola, Neven Duić, Salvatore Ruggiero et al.
3 citations
Energy
Integrated Energy Systems Optimization
2.19
article

Who will foot the bill? The opportunity cost of prioritising nuclear power over renewable energy for the case of Finland

Björn Steigerwald, Jero Ahola, Neven Duić, Salvatore Ruggiero, Jens Weibezahn, Rasul Satymov, Christian Breyer, Dmitrii Bogdanov
article en
3 citations

Abstract

In an effort to decarbonise their energy systems, several countries have declared intentions to triple their nuclear power capacity by 2050 at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of the Parties 28. The expansion of nuclear power includes plans for so-called small modular reactors, intended for electricity generation as well as combined heat and power production. This study aims to demonstrate the cost differences between nuclear-based and renewables-based energy-industry systems using the Finnish energy system as a case study. Four nuclear power expansion scenarios are examined, imposing 13.2 GW of nuclear power capacity into Finland’s energy supply mix, with various capacities of small- and large-scale nuclear power plants alongside combined heat and power production from small-scale nuclear plants. These nuclear tripling scenarios are compared to a reference scenario that simulates a free cost optimisation with zero emissions target. The nuclear scenarios show 71-84% higher annualised system cost of 18.4-19.7 b€ compared to a renewables-based system costing 10.7 b€ in 2050. The reference scenario does not include the installation of new nuclear power capacities, indicating that new nuclear power plants are not part of a cost-optimal system. Additionally, the energy-industry system outlined in the reference scenario possesses fewer risks compared to nuclear tripling scenarios, particularly given that SMR technologies are not yet commercially available. The findings have important implications for energy justice, especially in terms of the significant opportunity cost presented by the nuclear decarbonisation pathway. • Tripling nuclear power is more expensive than optimised renewables in Finland • Tripling nuclear power costs over 71% more, equal to 2.3% of Finland's GDP • Tripling nuclear power exacerbates local social inequalities • Renewables meet energy demand more cost-effectively and avoid nuclear risks • Timely insights for policymakers quantifying the costs of nuclear power expansion

EnergyVol. 337
German Institute for Economic Research (DE), Copenhagen Business School (DK), University of Zagreb (HR), Technische Universität Berlin (DE), Lappeenranta-Lahti University of Technology (FI)
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Integrated Energy Systems Optimization
2.19
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.