The end of nuclear power in Germany: an ecological step forward with a high political cost
The end of nuclear power in Germany represents much more than the end of an era. It is an attempt to deepen the development of renewables, although not everyone appreciates that it falls at the most appropriate time. Within the framework of the energy crisis, various opposition voices and even from the ruling coalition itself consider it too risky a bet. However, the real problem does not lie in energy security per se, but in the lack of consensus.
"Fukushima changed my view of nuclear power."The phrase belongs to the former German Chancellor Angela Merkel. She delivered it in front of the German Federal Parliament in June 2011, three months after the tragedy in Japan that shocked the entire world.The German leader justified her decision by claiming that the level of risk that she saw as acceptable in the past was no longer such. And for this reason, she proposed to definitively abandon the generation of nuclear energy, a process that culminated on April 15 when the last active reactors were disconnected.What was not deactivated, however, was the controversy, since the consensus around that decision if it ever existed is absent. And, precisely, the reason for this disagreement is the same one that the chancellor used: is Germany willing to accept the risks of eliminating an energy source in the current context?The green yearning vs the war in UkraineThe end of nuclear reactors in Germany could be counted as a historic victory for all those who have opposed it since its inception. They were protests that in the late 1970s and early 1980s gave birth to what would become a new political party: The Greens.And it is precisely a member of that force, the Vice Chancellor and Minister of Economy and Climate Protection, Robert Habeck (Bundnis 90/die Grnen), who has had to give the final order. The green party can consider the long battle won.
A dinosaur symbolizing the end of nuclear power in Germany is set up for a protest in front of the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin on April 15, 2023, marking the closure of Germany's last three nuclear power plants. Odd Andersen / AFP
For the opposition leader, Friedrich Merz (CDU), the feeling of happiness turns into disappointment. He considers the government's decision a blunder. In fact, he came to qualify on April 15 as a "black day for Germany". From his point of view, the war unleashed by Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the consequent energy crisis completely changed the assessment of the scenario and for this reason he considers that the decision "has no rationality" and describes it as "ideological".His negative assessment of the measure also has a certain dose of ideology. And it is that her party, the Christian Democratic Union, has historically been a defender of nuclear energy. In its conception it is a "bridge technology" that guarantees a safe transition from fossil fuels to renewables. A position abandoned by Merkel in 2011, but one that Merz recovers and launches into the current debate.The impact of the nuclear disconnectThe fear of not having enough energy in a highly industrialized country like Germany with 82 million inhabitants has underpinned criticism of the decision since the beginning of the war. In fact, the minister Habeck sent a signal to those sectors by postponing the disconnection in October 2022until the winter passed.Despite the fears of critics, the risk that they occur "blackouts", as formulated a few weeks ago by one of the vice-presidents of the Bundestag, Wolfgang Kubicki (FDP)loses strength day by day in the face of various government actions, such as the diversification of gas import sources, the construction of new liquefied gas terminalsinvestment and expansion of renewable energy and energy saving. The real impact of the elimination of atomic energy is related to the place it occupies in the country's energy matrix. According to data provided by the Federal Statistical Office, in 2022 nuclear energy accounted for 6.4% of Germany's electricity supply and ranked among the least important sources in the group of non-renewable energies that include coal (33.3%) and gas (11.4 %). The rest of the supply comes from renewable sources such as wind energy (24.1%), photovoltaic (10.6%) and biogas (5.8%), among others.
Environmental activists from Greenpeace and 'Koala Kollektiv' protest against greenwashing in Frankfurt, Germany, on January 11, 2022. Michael Probst/AP
Beyond the security of energy supply, criticism also points to an externality derived from the decision. Indeed, the energy that does not come from nuclear po
Friday, April 21, 2023 at 12:03 am