Germany shuts down its remaining three nuclear power stations in the name of “a new era”

On Saturday, the last three nuclear power reactors in Germany will shut down, bringing an end to the nation’s more than 60-year nuclear era.

Germany has long been divided on the issue of nuclear power.

Some people wish to stop using a technology they see as harmful, unsustainable, and a deterrent to accelerating the use of renewable energy.

Others, though, believe it is a mistake to shut down nuclear power reactors. At a time when significant reductions in pollution that warms the earth are required, they see it as turning off the tap on a dependable source of low-carbon energy.

The German government has remained strong despite ongoing arguments and last-minute requests to keep the reactors operating in the face of an energy catastrophe.

Nuclear power is not environmentally friendly, according to the German government. Neither is it sustainable, according to Steffi Lemke, the Green Party’s member and Germany’s federal minister for the environment and consumer protection.

We’re starting a brand-new age of energy generation, she declared.

decades of planning went into this

Emsland, Isar 2, and Neckarwestheim’s closure mark the successful execution of a strategy that was first conceived more than 20 years ago. But its origins go back far further.

Germany experienced a strong anti-nuclear campaign during the 1970s. The risks posed by the technology and, for some, its connection to nuclear weapons, brought disparate groups together to fight the construction of new power plants. The Green Party, a current member of the ruling coalition, was founded as a result of the movement.

The partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island nuclear power station in Pennsylvania in 1979 and the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, which resulted in a radioactive waste cloud that drifted into sections of Germany, both served as catalysts for the resistance.

The German government promised to phase down nuclear energy and begin shutting down reactors in 2000. However, when a new administration took office in 2009, there was a fleeting hope that nuclear power may be given a pass as a transitional technology to speed up the nation’s switch to renewable energy.

Fukushima then occurred

Three reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi power station melted down in March 2011 as a result of an earthquake and tsunami. The greatest nuclear disaster to ever hit Japan served as evidence for many Germans “that assurances that a nuclear accident of a large scale can’t happen are not credible,” according to Miranda Schreurs, professor of environment and climate policy at the Technical University of Munich.

A physicist who had previously supported nuclear power, then-Chancellor Angela Merkel, made a speech three days later in which she referred to the disaster as a “inconceivable catastrophe for Japan” and a “turning point” for the world. She declared that the nuclear phase-out in Germany would be accelerated, with older units being shut down immediately.

Yet another storyline twist was offered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

German authorities delayed their intention to shut down the final three facilities in December 2022 because they were concerned about their energy security without Russian gas. Some advised reconsidering.

But the government refused, only agreeing to maintain them until April 15.

It’s a time of triumph for those involved in the anti-nuclear fight.

Paul-Marie Manière, a representative for Greenpeace, told blogtweet that it was a significant victory for the millions of people who have been opposing nuclear power in Germany and across the globe for decades.

A divisive force

The decision to stop using a low-carbon energy source as the effects of the climate catastrophe worsen, according to detractors of Germany’s approach, is foolish.

According to Leah Stokes, a professor of climate and energy policy at the University of California, Santa Barbara, “we need to keep operating existing, safe nuclear reactors while also ramping up renewables as quickly as possible.”

According to her, the major danger is that fossil fuels replace the energy void left by nuclear power. According to studies released last year, coal consumption has increased more than nuclear energy usage has decreased in Germany after Fukushima.

Germany wants to replace the 6% of electricity produced by its three nuclear power reactors with renewable energy sources, as well as gas and coal.

The dirtiest fossil fuel, coal, accounts for more than 30% of Germany’s energy needs. The government has made contentious decisions to use coal to assist ensure energy security.

In an unsuccessful effort to save it from being destroyed to mine the coal beneath it, protesters, including Greta Thunberg, descended on the west German village of Lützerath in January.

The opposite of what we need, according to Stokes, is to increase coal production. She noted that while fossil fuels provide a threat to the environment, they also pose a health danger. According to a recent estimate, 8.7 million deaths per year are caused by air pollution from fossil fuels.

One of Germany’s top economists, Veronika Grimm, told CNN that maintaining nuclear power facilities longer would have given Germany more time “to electrify extensively,” particularly given that renewable energy growth “remains sluggish.”

However, proponents of the nuclear freeze assert that it will ultimately speed the demise of fossil fuels.

Germany has committed to shutting down its final coal-fired power plant by 2038, with a 2030 deadline in some locations. By the end of this decade, it wants to have generated 80% of its own electricity.

In the months after Fukushima, more coal was added, although Schreurs noted that nuclear plant closures had seen a significant increase in the use of clean energy. According to her, “that urgency and demand could be what it takes to push forward with the growth of renewables.”

According to representatives of Germany’s renewable energy sector, the shutdown will pave the way for increased investment in green energy.

As the head of the German Renewable Energy Federation (BEE), Simone Peter told CNN, “Germany’s phase-out of nuclear power is a historic event and an overdue step in terms of energy.” “It is past time that we move on from the nuclear age and steadily organize the renewable age.”

Schreurs argued that the effects of nuclear power shouldn’t be disregarded either, citing the possibility of health issues for miners as well as the carbon pollution caused by uranium mining. Additionally, she continued, it fosters dependence on Russia, which provides nuclear power facilities with uranium.

The vulnerability of nuclear to the climate catastrophe has also been demonstrated. Last year, France had to cut back on its nuclear energy production because the rivers that cooled the reactors during Europe’s brutal heat wave got too hot.

Million-year issue

German authorities now have to figure out what to do with the deadly, highly radioactive waste, which might remain a threat for tens of thousands of years.

The defunct nuclear plants’ neighboring interim storage facilities currently house the radioactive waste. However, the hunt is still ongoing for a permanent site where the garbage may be safely kept for a million years.

The location must be deep—many meters underground. The only acceptable rocks are clay rock, crystalline granite, and rock salt. Geological stability is required, with no risk of earthquakes or indications of subsurface rivers.

The procedure will probably be challenging, intricate, and astonishingly protracted—possibly taking more than a century.

A final location won’t be selected until between 2046 and 2064, according to BGE, the Federal Company for the Disposal of Radioactive Waste. The construction of the repository, the placement of the waste inside, and its eventual sealing will take decades longer.

What are different nations doing?

Many other nations are following similar paths to Germany. Italy shut down its final reactors in 1990, Denmark approved a resolution in the 1980s prohibiting the construction of nuclear power plants, Switzerland voted in 2017 to phase out nuclear power, and Austria’s one nuclear facility has never been utilized.

Others, however, still favor nuclear power in light of the conflict in the Ukraine, rising energy costs, and pressure to lower carbon pollution.

The UK, which is currently constructing a nuclear power station, stated in its most recent climate strategy that nuclear power plays a “crucial” part in “creating secure, affordable, and clean energy.”

Finland recently built a new nuclear plant, while France, which currently generates over 70% of its energy from nuclear sources, plans to build six further reactors. Even Japan, which is still coping with the effects of Fukushima, is thinking about restarting reactors.

The largest nuclear power in the world, the US, is investing in nuclear energy as well. In March, Vogtle 3 in Georgia began operating after a lengthy hiatus.

But according to analysts, this is hardly the beginning of a nuclear ramp up. Six years later and $30 billion more expensive than expected, Vogtle 3 finally went online.

Making the economics work out perfectly captures the main issue plaguing the entire nuclear sector. Construction of new plants might take more than ten years and is expensive. Even nations that discourse in favor of nuclear energy face significant development challenges, according to Schreurs.

The operating life of a nuclear power plant is between 40 and 60 years, thus there are a lot of elderly nuclear power stations in Europe, the US, and other. According to Schreurs, others are approaching a crucial point as Germany ends its nuclear era.

“A decision will need to be made as to whether nuclear power actually has a future.”