More than 70% of voters in Kazakhstan have expressed support for new nuclear energy projects, according to preliminary results from the country’s Central Election Commission. In Sunday’s referendum, which saw a 63% voter turnout, 71.12% of the 7.8 million participants answered “yes” to the question: “Do you agree with the construction of a nuclear power plant in Kazakhstan?”
President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, who had announced the referendum last year, emphasized the nation’s need for “reliable and environmentally-friendly” energy sources to meet the growing demands of Kazakhstan’s economy. He stated that nuclear energy could significantly contribute to these needs but stressed that any decision regarding its development must have public approval.
After casting his vote, President Tokayev addressed the media and discussed the potential developers for the nuclear power plant. He acknowledged the complexity of the decision, saying: “This is not an easy problem. The government needs to analyze and engage in appropriate negotiations. In my view, an international consortium of world-leading companies with the most advanced technologies should be involved in Kazakhstan’s nuclear energy development.”
🇰🇿 Kazakhstan, number one exporter of uranium, held a referendum to legalize nuclear plants. It passed with a 69% vote.
Very nice! pic.twitter.com/otCmzFRAtA
— Michael McLean (@cornoisseur) October 7, 2024
Meanwhile, in France, the new government led by Michel Barnier has made nuclear power a central focus of its agenda. Antoine Armand, the new Economy and Finance Minister, has been a strong critic of energy policies that depend heavily on intermittent renewable sources. As a former chair of a commission that highlighted concerns about France’s energy security, Armand’s stance raises the potential for friction with the European Commission, where von der Leyen has appointed two officials known for their strong opposition to nuclear energy.
France’s position could be strengthened by the recent endorsement of nuclear power from leading global financial institutions. This backing may fuel a confrontation with the EU over its climate policies, which some argue are increasingly under pressure. The EU’s approach, characterized by the ETS climate tax, the CBAM climate tariff, and mandatory reporting, is being challenged by alternative proposals.
One such alternative is being advanced by the “Climate & Freedom International Coalition,” a group of academics and policymakers. They have developed an international treaty that offers a free-market approach to climate action, positioning it as a counterbalance to the more collectivist Paris Agreement. Under this treaty, signatory nations would gain trade benefits by implementing climate-friendly, free-market reforms.
This approach emphasizes market liberalization and encourages investment in crucial assets like property, plant, and equipment (PP&E) through tax-exempt financial instruments such as “CoVictory bonds,” loans, and savings funds. Additionally, it advocates for targeted tax reductions—known as Clean Tax Cuts (CTCs)—across the four sectors responsible for 80% of global emissions: transport, energy, industry, and real estate. These tax cuts are also designed to dismantle monopolies that stifle competition. The Warsaw Enterprise Institute and other think tanks have elaborated on these proposals, highlighting how current regulations are hindering progress toward climate goals, in a new study.
In particular, the study discusses “Quick Fix Solutions”, writing:
Urgent action is required to unlock energy markets and promote competition and free trade. The initial steps toward this liberation can be swift and straightforward. The bureaucratic labyrinth within the energy sectors of Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries vividly demonstrates the detrimental impact of convoluted climate policies. Administrative complexities, like protracted building permit procedures and myriad formalities, impede energy sector investments and constrain the expansion of renewable energy sources. Bulgaria, Czechia, Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland are poignant examples of bureaucratic entanglements leading to delays and complications in the investment process.”
Furthermore, it adds that “Climate neutrality by the mid-21st century is believed to be crucial in limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre–industrial levels to avoid the worst effects of climate change. The CEE countries covered by this report have less ambitious CO2 emission reduction targets than Western European countries, yet they may struggle to meet these modest targets. For example, in Poland, almost 70 percent of the power production is still coal-based.”
It thereby highlights: “Infrastructure neglect is one of the biggest obstacles to the functioning of the expected energy market. It reduces the ability to scale businesses, and locks business models within national boundaries, facilitating the creation of oligopolies. Interconnections in the CEE region alone account for only 13 percent of the EU’s internal interconnection capacity. Modern economies are a mix of liberal and statist elements, often in conflict. This struggle results in harmful policies that hinder effective climate action. For a successful climate policy, massive private capital involvement is crucial. This necessitates deregulation and denationalization, allowing the market to allocate resources efficiently and drive the transition to a low-carbon economy.”
💥 Jeśli zmiany klimatu są rzeczywiście tak poważne to dlaczego UE wybrała najmniej skuteczny sposób ich zwalczania❓🤔
📍 Warsaw Enterprise Institute wraz z innymi wolnorynkowymi think tankami z Bułgarii, Rumunii, Czech, Słowacji, Węgier i Ukrainy opublikował raport analizujący… pic.twitter.com/UJvrwFu2PL
— Warsaw Enterprise Institute (@FundacjaWEI) October 8, 2024
On nuclear energy, the study points out the following:
“Nuclear energy Slovakia’s five nuclear reactors supply 59 percent of its electricity, with new capacity recently added. Hungary’s single nuclear power plant, with four reactors, produces 44 percent of its electricity. Ukraine, if it joins the EU, would benefit from its 15 operating nuclear reactors, which provide 55 percent of its electricity. Czechia (6 reactors), Bulgaria (2 reactors), and Romania (2 reactors) also rely significantly on nuclear energy. Poland has long discussed building a large nuclear reactor, but it has pushed its expected completion beyond 2040. Meanwhile, small modular reactors (SMRs) are a promising alternative, attracting private investment for use in power generation, industry, and district heating. However, political obstacles have stalled these plans. Less restrictive landscape could accelerate the deployment of SMRs, providing a flexible and efficient energy source.”
In recent years, the European Commission has been skeptical about nuclear power. However, last year, the European Parliament voted to include all types of nuclear energy in its list of “net-zero technologies,” despite the Commission’s initial preference for only innovative third and fourth-generation nuclear technologies. A global change in attitudes towards nuclear power, from Kazachstan to France, is now visible.