Slovenia’s JEK2 nuclear power project has moved forward with feasibility studies showing that both Westinghouse’s AP1000 and EDF’s EPR designs are technically suitable for the site. Yet this development goes far beyond engineering—it reflects Slovenia’s broader concerns over energy security, EU decarbonization goals, and regional cooperation.

(Image: JEK2)

Energy Security and Policy Drivers

The existing Krsko nuclear plant, commissioned in 1983, is expected to operate until 2043 following its life extension. Beyond that, Slovenia faces the challenge of replacing aging capacity while reducing its reliance on imports, which currently account for nearly 30% of national electricity supply.

Nuclear power is seen as the only viable option for large-scale, low-carbon baseload generation. EU climate policy further underlines this role: the European Green Deal mandates carbon neutrality by 2050, and the EU taxonomy has classified nuclear energy as a sustainable investment, providing political and financial legitimacy to JEK2.

Technology Comparison

· Westinghouse AP1000: Emphasizes modular construction and passive safety features, making it particularly resilient against seismic events—a relevant factor for Central Europe.

· EDF EPR/EPR1200: Offers higher output capacity, robust active and passive safety systems, and extensive European experience. However, reference projects such as Flamanville, Olkiluoto, and Hinkley Point C highlight potential risks of cost escalation and schedule overruns.

Slovenia’s decision will likely hinge on whether it prioritizes the AP1000’s replicability and construction certainty, or the EPR’s greater power output and integration with EU nuclear policy frameworks.

Regional Cooperation and Geopolitics

The Krsko site is jointly owned with Croatia, and Zagreb has already expressed interest in participating in JEK2, meaning cross-border governance of electricity supply and revenues will be a central issue.

At the geopolitical level, nuclear projects are rarely neutral: choosing Westinghouse would strengthen ties with the United States, while selecting EDF would reinforce energy cooperation with France and align Slovenia more deeply within the EU’s nuclear supply chain.

Public Acceptance and Social Legitimacy

Nuclear energy remains controversial in Central and Eastern Europe. Slovenia cancelled its planned 2024 referendum but promised to hold one before a final investment decision. Public perception has shifted somewhat in favor of nuclear energy amid energy price volatility and the climate crisis, but environmental groups remain critical of waste management and high capital costs.

Maintaining transparency—through spatial planning, public consultations, and open communication—will be decisive in ensuring social legitimacy for JEK2.

Outlook

If successfully delivered, JEK2 could transform Slovenia’s energy landscape by the early 2040s:

· Enhanced energy sovereignty, reducing dependence on fossil fuel imports.

· Role as a regional hub, exporting low-carbon baseload power to Central Europe.

· Alignment with EU climate goals, contributing to the 2050 net-zero target.

Still, challenges in financing, cost containment, construction timelines, and public support remain substantial. Ultimately, JEK2 is not only an infrastructure project but a test of Slovenia’s ability to balance national strategy, regional cooperation, and societal consensus.