A year without nuclear power: And Germany still exists

The gloomy forecasts for Germany after the last nuclear power plants were switched off have not come true. The topic can finally be shelved.

The cooling tower of the shut down Isar 2 nuclear power plant in Essenbach on August 26, 2023 Photo: Wolfgang Maria Weber/imago

It is time to verbally disarm the nuclear debate. It has now been exactly a year since the last three reactors in Germany went offline. And what happened? The event took place quite quietly. Let’s take the coal. Despite all the prophecies of doom, coal-fired power generation in Germany was a quarter lower in the first year without nuclear power plants than in the previous year. Accordingly, despite the nuclear phase-out, CO2 levels fell₂-Emissions per kilowatt hour in the German electricity mix.

Critics had predicted otherwise. The reasons for the balance sheet are varied. In summary, the lost kilowatt hours were completely compensated for by the addition of renewables. But a slightly reduced electricity consumption due to the economic situation in the industry and an extremely mild winter also depressed the need for coal. Critics had also questioned the stability of the power supply, which continued to exist.

But stability depends more on the state of the networks and the organizational structures of the industry (IT security, for example) than on the question of whether there are three more or fewer power plants. One thing in particular has changed as a result of the nuclear phase-out: the import balance of electricity. It reacts sensitively to minimal changes in the national price structure on the electricity exchange. Germany, a net exporter of electricity for 20 years, became an importer with the end of the last three reactors.

Now one can discuss whether such a snapshot is the major disruptive side effect of the exit – but for what purpose? It doesn’t change anything anymore. At least as far as the light water reactors of the 20th century are concerned, nuclear power is history in this country. If someone demands a reversal of their exit in order to raise their personal profile, it is a sham battle.

Focus on decision-making scope

Instead, it would be more productive if political actors concentrated on those points of the energy transition where there is actually scope for decision-making. Because there are certainly enough reasons for criticism of energy policy. The planned economy approach to the coal phase-out is one such point; Here it would be more elegant to do the whole thing via CO₂-Price to be regulated.

There is also a risk of market disruptions due to the uncoordinated expansion of photovoltaics and wind power. Additional systems will primarily supply electricity when there is already enough of it. Nevertheless, with more and more tax money, more and more electricity is to be generated, which is worthless at the moment of generation due to the lack of storage. That would be an urgent topic for the debate – nuclear power is currently no longer the case.