Julián Mora

As Professor of Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development you have spent decades researching regional geographical analysis. How has your perspective of the role of energy and infrastructure in territorial development evolved?

Throughout my career, I have gone from understanding energy as just another sector of economic activity to viewing it as a structuring element of the territory. Regional geographical analysis, supported by demographic, fiscal and labour data, shows that certain energy infrastructures not only generate a significant amount of direct employment but also shape entire territorial dynamics. They anchor population, sustain services, increase disposable income and create an "associated business geosystem." In regions such as Extremadura that are marked by rural depopulation, the presence of a facility like the Almaraz nuclear power plant has acted as a stabilizing factor in the face of the demographic decline affecting 95% of municipalities.

For this reason, my perspective has evolved towards a more systemic approach: energy is not merely electricity generation; it is territorial cohesion, a driving force and an economic anchor. When energy infrastructure has continuity and substantial economic weight, it becomes part of the geographical structure itself, and any decision concerning it transcends sectoral policy and becomes a matter of territorial planning.

Throughout your career, you have worked on regional development and sustainability. What broader lessons do your research findings offer for addressing energy transition processes in rural areas?

My research has led me to a clear conclusion: the energy transition cannot be approached solely as a technological or environmental process, but rather as a territorial transformation with profound economic and social implications. In rural areas, where demographic fragility and the weakness of the productive fabric are structural, any change in energy infrastructure must be planned with particular caution. Sustainability is not only about decarbonization, but also about ensuring economic stability, skilled employment and social cohesion.

Comparative experience shows that when strategic assets are dismantled without viable, already consolidated alternatives in place, territories enter regressive dynamics that are extremely difficult—if not impossible—to reverse. Therefore, the main lesson is that the transition must be gradual, data-driven, and accompanied by prior investments that guarantee economic continuity. It is not about slowing down change, but about preventing environmental sustainability from being pursued at the expense of a region’s overall sustainability and condemning its people to marginalization.

In your article “Almaraz: the uncomfortable truth,” you point out that claims lacking sufficient empirical grounding are being circulated in the public debate. Which aspects do you believe are being most misinterpreted or oversimplified?

In that article, I point out, above all, an excessive simplification of territorial reality. The idea is being promoted that the [Almaraz] plant has only relative weight in the local economy, or that its influence can be easily replaced by other activities without providing rigorous statistical analysis or solid territorial comparisons, when in fact its importance is unquestionable.

Something that is also being downplayed is the structural impact it has had on demographics, municipal income, and the auxiliary business fabric, as if it were merely a set of isolated direct jobs. Another frequent simplification is to frame the debate in ideological terms, as though it were simply a matter of being for or against a particular technology, when the core issue is territorial and economic.

My position is not based on energy preferences, but on the analysis of available data and the observation of comparative dynamics, as well as on well-documented experience in the closure of large industrial facilities. What I believe is most misinterpreted is precisely this structural and systemic dimension: when the debate is reduced to slogans, the real complexity of the affected territory is overlooked, such as in the functional area of Navalmoral de la Mata, where Almaraz is located.

When you state that Almaraz’s influence is “structural,” what does this imply in economic, social, and territorial terms?

By this I mean that it is not a temporary or easily replaceable impact, but rather an element that has shaped the economic and social foundations of the territory for decades, since construction began in 1976. In economic terms, this implies that the plant not only generates direct employment but also sustains a network of auxiliary activities, services, commerce, and tax revenues that raise municipal income levels and provide budgetary stability.

In social terms, it has helped anchor population in an area marked by rural depopulation, retaining and attracting skilled human capital and fostering an expansive demographic dynamic. Between 1970 and 2005, Navalmoral de la Mata—the core municipality—doubled its population, growing from 8,500 to 17,300 inhabitants, an exceptional case within what is often referred to as “empty Spain,” and has since remained stable—something which is truly remarkable.

In territorial terms, it has acted as an anchoring factor, creating a locally articulated system structured around a driving activity that shapes infrastructure, mobility, housing, and public services. That is why I speak of structure: because its presence has shaped the functioning of the territory, and its eventual disappearance would not be a simple sectoral adjustment, but a profound disruption of the economic and demographic balance of that functional area.

You insist on the need for rigorous, source-based analysis. What key conclusions do these data point to regarding the territory’s economic dependence on Almaraz?

When, from the University, we turn to official sources and analyze statistical series from a comparative perspective, the conclusion is clear: there is a significant and structural economic dependence. The data reveal a substantial concentration of direct and indirect employment linked to the plant, a fiscal contribution well above the regional average, and levels of municipal income and budgetary stability that are uncommon in comparable rural environments—and even in many urban ones.

Moreover, the demographic performance of nearby municipalities shows a greater capacity to retain population compared to the depopulation affecting much of Extremadura. This does not mean that the territory cannot diversify, but it does indicate that, at present, the Almaraz nuclear power plant acts as the primary economic hub and as a factor of resilience. Denying this dependence prevents any realistic planning for a transition scenario or a potential closure.

In your recent op-ed “The false dichotomy between Almaraz and renewables: blackout threat,” you argue that the debate is being framed as a mutually exclusive choice. Why do you consider this dichotomy to be misguided?

Because it stems from a technical simplification that does not reflect how a modern electricity system actually operates. It is not a matter of choosing one source over another as if they were mutually exclusive alternatives, but of understanding that they perform different functions within the energy mix. Renewables are essential in the decarbonization process, but their intermittent nature requires stable, dispatchable backup in order to guarantee security of supply and price stability.

Framing the debate as “nuclear or renewables” introduces an ideological lens that distorts technical and territorial analysis. The issue is not about abruptly replacing one technology with another, but about integrating both in an orderly manner while preserving security of supply, economic competitiveness, and territorial cohesion. When the matter is presented as a binary confrontation, you lose sight of the real challenge: maintaining system balance and ensuring the rigorous planning of the transition.

You also warn of the risk of an “abrupt system disruption” if planning is not carried out properly. Which specific scenarios are you referring to?

I am referring to scenarios in which firm and dispatchable capacity is withdrawn before an equivalent, fully operational capacity is in place to ensure stability. In practical terms, this could translate into greater dependence on electricity imports, increased use of combined-cycle plants to meet peak demand, heightened volatility in wholesale prices, and a loss of competitiveness for the industrial fabric. It may also generate tensions during periods of high demand or low renewable output, particularly under adverse weather conditions.

From a territorial perspective, such a disruption is not merely technical: it affects investor confidence, business planning, and perceptions of energy security. Complex systems require carefully sequenced transitions. If one pillar is dismantled before the next is consolidated, the adjustment is not neutral; it carries economic and social costs that fall on the country as a whole and, more intensely, on the territories directly linked to that infrastructure.

How do the quality and reliability of electricity supply influence the competitiveness of territories and their capacity to generate skilled employment?

The quality and reliability of electricity supply are silent yet decisive factors in economic competitiveness. Companies that generate skilled employment—particularly in industrial, technological, or advanced service sectors—require stability, predictability, and reasonably contained energy costs. When supply is reliable, continuous and characterized by low price volatility, uncertainty is reduced and medium- and long-term planning becomes more feasible. Conversely, if there are doubts about system stability or the future evolution of energy costs, investment tends to shift towards countries offering greater energy security.

In regions that already start from a peripheral position or face structural weaknesses, losing that confidence factor can represent an additional obstacle to attracting capital- and knowledge-intensive projects. Energy security, therefore, is not merely a technical issue, but a strategic component of economic development and of a territory’s capacity to retain talent and generate skilled employment.

What effects would the closure of Almaraz have on the business fabric, services, and economic activity of the region?

Beyond direct employment, shutting down Almaraz would trigger a chain reaction across the entire regional economic ecosystem. The plant does not merely sustain jobs; it generates steady demand for auxiliary companies, specialized contractors, technical services, hospitality, retail, and professional activities. This circulation of income keeps a business fabric alive that, in a region such as Extremadura, lacks alternative drivers of comparable economic leverage.

Moreover, the associated tax revenues enable municipalities to finance public services, facilities, and investments that underpin quality of life and reinforce social cohesion. If this core source of activity were to disappear without an equivalent and already consolidated alternative, the impact would be immediate and particularly acute over the following five years: loss of business mass, decline in local consumption, reduced budgetary capacity, and demographic weakening. In fragile territories, such processes tend to reinforce one another. That is why the analysis must consider the economic system as a whole, rather than focusing solely on the number of direct jobs.

In light of your analyses and your career in spatial planning and sustainable development, what message would you convey to public decision-makers about the need to integrate the energy transition, security of supply, and territorial cohesion?

The energy transition cannot be designed as an isolated sectoral policy, but rather as a comprehensive national strategy with very specific territorial implications. Decarbonization is essential, but so too is ensuring security of supply and preserving territorial cohesion, particularly in regions vulnerable to depopulation and with limited economic diversification.

If you exclusively prioritize the environmental objective, without ensuring technical stability and real economic alternatives in the affected territories, there is a risk of creating imbalances that later prove impossible to correct. Spatial planning requires anticipation, comparative analysis and gradual implementation: first consolidating the infrastructures and activities that are to replace the existing ones, and then, in a coordinated manner, proceeding with the transition. This is not about slowing down the transition, but about making it compatible with the system’s competitiveness and with the economic and social stability of the territories involved.

What lessons can be drawn from experiences involving the closure of large industrial or energy facilities in Spain or elsewhere in Europe?

The experience of closing large industrial or energy facilities in Spain has, in some cases, amounted to a clear deception of the people who depended on those activities, as seen in the dismantled Garoña nuclear power plant—where the area now faces poverty and severe demographic decline—and in the Andorra coal-fired power plant, where in 2020 it was promised that 4,400 jobs would be created, yet none have materialised.

In Germany—without even addressing the broader economic consequences acknowledged by Chancellor Merz—a fairly consistent pattern can be observed: when closure takes place without a solid economic alternative already in place, the territory enters a phase of irreversible regression. Direct employment is lost, but, more importantly, the auxiliary business fabric weakens, municipal revenues decline, and the capacity to sustain services and infrastructure is reduced. Over the medium term, this often translates into population loss, accelerated ageing, and increasing dependence on public transfers.

In cases where industrial reconversion has been more successful, there has been forward planning, substantial prior investment and a clear strategy for productive diversification before closure. The main lesson is that replacing a structural economic engine cannot be improvised or addressed through isolated compensatory measures. It requires time, resources and an integrated territorial vision to prevent closure from becoming a driver of structural decline. As for shutting down Almaraz, no alternative has been envisaged. A disaster!

Would you like to add anything?

I would like to emphasize that this debate calls for calm and rigour. Decisions regarding major energy infrastructures are not symbolic; they have measurable consequences in terms of income, employment, demographics, and territorial balance. For this reason, I insist that the analysis must be grounded in verified data and realistic scenarios, not in simplified or ideological approaches.

The energy transition is necessary and forms part of the commitment to decarbonization, but its design must integrate timing, impacts, and viable alternatives. In vulnerable territories, planning errors are not neutral: they can entrench processes of decline that are difficult to reverse. My position does not reflect an uncritical defence of any particular technology, but rather a concern for territorial cohesion and for the stability of the economic system as a whole. The real challenge is to reconcile the energy transition with territorial sustainability and social cohesion—and that requires planning, institutional coordination, and a long-term vision.