Serbia is entering the early stages of exploring whether a nuclear power plant should become part of its future energy strategy, but officials and experts alike agree that public acceptance will ultimately determine whether such a project ever moves forward. The process under way is complex and likely to take many years, and without broad societal support it could stall at any point.
According to Ministry of Mining and Energy of the Republic of Serbia Minister Dubravka Đedović Handanović, the first phase of work is focused on analysing the legal framework and establishing whether nuclear energy makes sense for Serbia’s long-term needs. That phase is expected to be completed by around mid-2027 and will culminate in a comprehensive report outlining Serbia’s technical, regulatory and economic position on nuclear power. Once this foundational work is finished, attention will turn toward preparing for potential construction.
The preparatory phase itself is expected to take several years, with initial assessments of technology options, safety standards and grid integration completed alongside supporting studies conducted with international partners such as France’s EDF and the French Development Agency (AFD). Decisions on specific reactor types and locations have not yet been made and will require further analysis.
Energy experts point to Serbia’s heavy reliance on coal-fired generation — including large plants such as those in Nikola Tesla, Kolubara and Kostolac — as a central factor driving the nuclear debate. Coal remains the dominant source of electricity in Serbia, but it is increasingly seen as unsustainable both from a climate perspective and in terms of future energy security. Nuclear energy is being discussed as a possible source of stable, low-carbon baseload power that could support the energy system over coming decades.
Yet at the heart of the discussion is public opinion. Slobodan Bubnjević, a physicist who has spoken publicly about the matter, stresses that no nuclear plant can be built without citizens’ support. He points out that nuclear energy remains controversial globally due to safety, environmental and waste management concerns, and that countries that have successfully built nuclear power plants have done so only after securing broad public consensus. In his view, achieving transparency in the planning process and involving civil society and scientific communities in decision-making will be essential.
Local debate mirrors this reality: while proponents argue that nuclear power would enhance energy independence and reduce carbon emissions, sceptics warn that Serbia lacks the current industrial base, regulatory clarity and trained workforce to undertake such a project without substantial external assistance. The outcome of the ongoing review — and crucially, how the public feels about it — will shape whether nuclear energy remains a theoretical option or becomes a cornerstone of Serbia’s electricity system in the decades ahead.
This process follows legal reforms that repealed Serbia’s decades-long ban on nuclear power plant construction, which had been in place since 1989 after the Chernobyl disaster, opening the door for formal consideration of nuclear energy as part of the country’s long-term energy mix.
