The Italian Parliament, by giving final approval to the framework law on "sustainable nuclear power" (the text is called exactly that) with 81 votes in favour, 51 against and 7 abstentions in the Senate on 23 September, has paved the way for a return to nuclear energy, writing a new chapter in our country's troubled relationship with atomic power — a relationship that began in the 1960s with the construction of the first large plants and passed through the referendums of 1987 and 2011. The text does not directly authorise any new power plant, but gives the government twelve months to draft the rules governing the entire nuclear cycle. The first plants are expected, according to Minister Pichetto Fratin, around 2033–34, while questions about costs, waste and the regulatory authority are deferred to the implementing decrees. Which, the minister promises, "will arrive by the end of this year".

What the sustainable nuclear law does (and does not do)

First of all, what has been approved is a framework law: that is, it specifies nothing in concrete terms, but simply mandates the government, within 12 months, to adopt one or more decrees defining the regulatory framework within which new power plants may be built — covering experimentation, siting, construction and operation of new installations (including modular and advanced reactors), decommissioning, management of spent fuel and radioactive waste. A national programme for sustainable nuclear power and fusion is also envisaged.
What is already known from the approved text is that the costs of safety inspections and radiation protection will be borne by operators (mostly private), and that training, research, information campaigns and consultation with the populations of the affected areas (which have not yet been identified) are provided for. The resources currently allocated in the bill for the national plan amount to 20 million euros per year for the three-year period 2027–2029, plus 1.5 million for 2025 and 6 million for 2026 (including for information campaigns).

The framework law does not, however, indicate where to build, which reactors to choose, how much it will cost or who will pay: these are matters the law entrusts to the decrees. In any case, according to Minister Pichetto, the vote opens up "the entire scenario for bringing our country into nuclear energy production".

The case made by those who want nuclear power

The political majority, and all those who favour a return to new-generation nuclear energy — which will no longer consist of a few large plants but of many small ones managed by private operators — puts forward several arguments in support of its position: from energy demand in the context of decarbonisation to the greater safety of new plants compared to old ones, from the insufficiency of renewables alone to the limited space the new plants will occupy, to a reduced dependence on foreign supply.

The government draws primarily on this last point: dependence on imports. According to a "bullet-point" document circulated by the Ministry of the Environment and Energy Security, out of total electricity demand of 320–330 terawatt-hours, net imports in recent years have amounted to around 50 TWh, largely from France and Switzerland, both of which produce nuclear power. The conclusion: "In the meantime, Italian households are already paying for nuclear energy" — just not Italy's own. By 2040, a further 100–150 TWh may be needed, to meet electrification, efficiency gains and data centre growth. The ministry's idea is that nuclear power could eventually cover between 11 and 22 per cent of the energy mix, alongside solar, wind, hydroelectric and geothermal sources.

The second strong argument put forward by supporters is that nuclear power, unlike renewables, is a continuous and dispatchable source. "The sun doesn't shine at night and the wind doesn't always blow," writes the minister, noting that nuclear power can produce electricity for up to 90 per cent of the hours in a year. "Today this role is played by gas; tomorrow it could be played by sustainable nuclear power." Electricity prices follow gas prices: replacing gas with nuclear, say supporters, would reduce exposure to geopolitical crises.

On the question of costs in electricity bills: the ministry points out that "France, with 57 nuclear reactors, pays electricity bills roughly half what we pay. It's not an ideological question: it's a question of price," as stated in the "bullet points", which add that Italian companies pay more than double what French companies pay for electricity. This is nonetheless a simplification: prices vary considerably depending on taxes, excise duties and temporary measures (as we are currently seeing with those applied in Italy on petrol). Among supporters, an estimate is also circulating — attributed to studies by Confindustria and Enea — suggesting that a share of 8 GW of nuclear capacity would allow savings of 17 billion euros.

It is also pointed out that renewables are not free. According to the government, "they are useful, but they are not free: between 2008 and 2025, Italians have already paid 170 billion euros for them. And they will continue to pay for them through their electricity bills." The ministry also invokes the position of the International Energy Agency on climate: achieving climate neutrality requires a mix of renewables, storage and nuclear power, because without significant growth in the latter, targets become both harder and more expensive to reach. "It's not ideology. It's climate mathematics." Finally, there is the comparison with old-generation nuclear power, characterised by large plants and large quantities of waste. A small modular reactor of 300 MW, of the new generation, would occupy around three football pitches; to produce the same amount of energy with solar panels, the ministry says, you would need up to three thousand hectares.

On the question of safety, new-generation reactors, the ministry maintains, are designed to shut down automatically in the event of an anomaly. Moreover, for forty years the Italian industry has been manufacturing components and nuclear installations for France, the United Kingdom, the United States and China — but not for Italy: the law, say supporters, would allow engineers and technicians to work at home and to build a supply chain involving universities and research centres. And what about the referendums in which Italians twice voted against nuclear power? Those of 1987 and 2011, supporters explain, were legitimate but concerned technologies very different from those being developed today. Moreover, the first took place a year after Chernobyl, the second in the immediate aftermath of the Fukushima disaster: in other words, rather than being rational choices, they were decisions made in the grip of emotion and fear.

The objections of those who are against it

Many objections have also been raised, however, by those who oppose the move — both in politics, among those who voted against it (the centre-left parties, with the exception of Azione and Italia Viva), and among many civil society organisations working on climate and the environment.

Timelines and costs are the two main objections. Pichetto himself has clarified that 2033‑34 is an approximate forecast: "It is only an estimate I make based on the information available to me from industry experts." Other assessments place advanced reactors on a horizon of around 2040. The point, say critics, is that the energy bill that needs to come down is today's. Nuclear supporters respond that no one has ever promised immediate benefits: nuclear power is not built overnight, and the challenge is therefore between investing now or acting in the short term. The costs of small reactors are then the issue on which the most recent data from opponents is focused. According to the analysis presented in hearings by the 100% Rinnovabili Network (which brings together universities, research centres, businesses, trade unions, and the third sector, along with Fondazione per lo sviluppo sostenibile, Greenpeace, Kyoto Club, Legambiente and WWF), no SMR is currently operational in the West, and several international projects have been suspended or abandoned following sharp cost overruns. In the United States, for the NuScale project, the most advanced to date, energy production estimates range from $250 to $354 per MWh, figures the network describes as "off-market." The only three SMRs in operation worldwide, and the one under construction, show even steeper cost overruns: in China, the Shidao Bay 1 plant cost 200 per cent more than projected and came online 16 years after its announcement; the two small Russian floating reactors exceeded 300 per cent of their initial cost. The ministry, for its part, points to the billions that the United States, France, Canada and the United Kingdom are investing in the sector, and notes that the first advanced third-generation water-cooled SMRs are under construction in Canada.

There is also a historical risk. Again according to the network, from 1951 to 1 July 2025, 817 nuclear construction projects were launched worldwide and at least 95, across 20 countries, were abandoned or suspended: roughly one in nine never reached completion. The French case is frequently cited in parliamentary debate: the latest reactor came online with approximately twelve years of delay and at a cost approaching 24 billion euros. Even among nuclear supporters, some have noted that a 1.6 GW plant today requires between 8 and 13 billion euros, while the law allocates limited resources to the national plan (as outlined above). Critics have pointed out that in the technical report many costs (territorial compensation, new governance structures, possible incentives) cannot be quantified, and the question of who provides the upfront capital remains open: private operators with possible state guarantees, or taxpayers? There is nothing left to do but wait for the implementing decrees.

Doubts also surround the technology. The acronyms SMR (small modular reactors) and AMR (advanced modular reactors) describe size and construction method, not generation. The modular reactors currently under construction are advanced third-generation, water-cooled; fourth-generation ones, which promise better fuel utilisation and less radioactive waste, are not yet available at commercial scale: more of a vision than a reality.

The waste chapter: While the ministry notes that low- and intermediate-level waste — primarily from hospitals — is already held in around one hundred small temporary storage sites across the country, that waste from the old power plants is in France and the United Kingdom, and acknowledges that a national repository is needed, it is equally true that nearly forty years after Italy's exit from nuclear power the four old plants have still not been decommissioned and the single repository does not yet exist. Many critical voices argue that it makes no sense to open a new nuclear cycle without having closed the previous one. The 100% Rinnovabili network adds that, according to some studies, SMRs would generate from two to thirty times more radioactive waste than conventional reactors. Pichetto offers reassurance by stating that "the waste repository process is included in the enabling law," with decrees that will distinguish between temporary storage and the disposal of low- and intermediate-level waste, with the possibility of interim storage while awaiting a geological repository. Meanwhile, as of 31 December 2025, according to Sogin, the company responsible for decommissioning, the dismantling programme had reached 47.7 per cent completion, with around 31,000 cubic metres of radioactive waste held in more than 20 temporary storage sites (of which at least 1,700 cubic metres are high-activity waste). The single national repository has yet to be sited.

The question of energy independence is also contested: Italy has no uranium deposits — the fuel needed for fission — and around 40 per cent of global enrichment capacity is in Russia, a country that is hardly a friendly partner, or in the distant Canada and Kazakhstan. Replacing one dependency with another, critics say, does not amount to achieving independence.

Even water is an issue: water-cooled reactors struggle in very hot summers. This year, for instance, output at several French reactors was reduced due to heatwaves, and drought could do the rest.

In terms of supply volumes too, according to the network, the thesis of nuclear as the "backbone" of European electricity does not hold up: in 2025, solar and wind surpassed nuclear in electricity generation across the Union, with 30.1 per cent against 23.4 per cent, and nuclear output is stable or declining. Meanwhile, the costs of renewables and storage continue to fall: industrial batteries reportedly reached $70 per kWh in 2025, making a reliable electricity system based on renewables — with more flexible grids and without the need for nuclear baseload — feasible, according to the network. In the network's view, betting on nuclear today will neither reduce costs nor increase security, and risks slowing down decarbonisation. In Italy, critics reminded the Senate chamber, more than 7 GW of new renewable capacity was installed in 2025, and solar and wind together now account for around 57 GW. Supporters of the legislation point out that renewables already cover 41.5 per cent of electricity demand, and that nuclear would not replace but complement them — which, incidentally, is also the government's position.

What was requested and did not pass

Regarding the parliamentary process that led to final approval, it should also be noted that during the Senate examination all amendments were rejected. The main requests from the opposition were the creation of an independent nuclear safety authority with financial autonomy and costs borne by operators (in practice, the government committed — in a non-binding manner — to assessing whether to establish it and, if so, to building on the existing Isin, the inspectorate that already exists).

Attempts were also made to make mandatory a parliamentary opinion on the national programme and its monitoring, so as not to leave everything in the governme