Climate change, energy security, and risk—debating nuclear new build in Finland, France and the UK

Concerns about climate change and energy security have been major arguments used to justify the recent return of nuclear power as a serious electricity generation option in various parts of the world. This article examines the recent public discussion in Finland, France, and the UK – three countries currently in the process of constructing or planning new nuclear power stations. To place the public discussion on nuclear power within the relationship between policy discourses and contexts, the article addresses three interrelated themes: the justifications and discursive strategies employed by nuclear advocates and critics, the similarities and differences in debates between the three countries, and the interaction between the country-specific state orientations and the argumentation concerning nuclear power. Drawing from documentary analysis and semi-structured interviews, the article identifies and analyses key discursive strategies and their use in the context of the respective state orientations: ‘technology-and-industry-know-best’ in Finland, ‘government-knows-best’ in France, and ‘markets-know-best’ in the UK. The nuclear debates illustrate subtle ongoing transformations in these orientations, notably in the ways in which the relations between markets, the state, and civil society are portrayed in the nuclear debates.

► Focus on argumentation on new nuclear power in Finland, France, and the UK.
► Nuclear power is justified by climate change, energy security, and independence.
► The credibility of discursive strategies varies across countries.
► Country-specific state orientations shape the success of discursive strategies.
► Discursive strategies contain normative claims about state-society relations.