Energiewende: Atomkraft, Nein Danke
Energiewende means energy transition in German when directly translated. Such direct translation does not capture its full cultural significance within Germany. While Energie means energy, the term Wende was also used to describe the era of reunification between East and West Germany in 1989, a turning point in history that encompassed risk-taking and momentous change. Energiewende takes on a parallel spot in German history surrounding the environmental movement’s opposition to fossil fuels and nuclear energy in favor of climate-compatible energy consumption and high supply security. Laws passed in 2000, 2020, and 2022 require Germany to guarantee high tariffs for renewable energy, phase-out of coal, and phase-out of nuclear energy respectively. Despite this energy-focused legislation, John Kampfner in Why the Germans Do it Better explains that Germany is still certain to fail achieving a reduction in overall CO₂ emissions of 40 percent by 2030. This is due to its status as the sixth largest emitter of CO₂ in the world due to its reliance on the beloved trinity: oil, coal, and gas. Addressing this major contribution to climate change via greenhouse gas emissions requires the prioritized phasing out of fossil fuels. This pushback on fossil fuels as energy sources will require the substitution of that supply, ideally from renewable sources. This crucial transition may occur with the simultaneous phase-out of nuclear energy in Germany by April 2023.
Initially, I thought Germany should revert to the legislation of 2010 that proposes the continued operation of currently running nuclear plants until 2036 due to the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war and to prevent nuclear supply from being substituted with fossil fuels. However, Chancellor of Germany, Olaf Scholz, recently stated that the standing nuclear power plants only account for 6% of electricity and keeping them will have little effect. If that 6% were to be reallocated toward renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power alongside the simultaneous phasing out of coal, Energiewende would certainly be in full effect, but if it were instead to be reallocated towards fossil fuel energy sources, then the closure of nuclear power plants would arguably be a step in the wrong direction in terms of combatting climate change.
Nuclear power is generated from the approach of sustained atomic fission in a reactor that heats water to drive a steam-electric generator. Nuclear power plants do not directly generate CO₂ emissions, so in that sense, they are regarded as a cleaner energy source. However, nuclear electricity generation requires mined and enriched uranium, a process that does create CO₂ emissions, but only 0.5% — 4% of those produced from equivalent coal-fired stations of the same capacity. Nuclear power plants can become dangerous as uncontrolled reactions (caused by machine failure, human error, or natural disasters) could cause reactor cores to overheat, resulting in a meltdown and a radioactive leak into the environment. The largest nuclear disasters in history occurred in Chernobyl, Ukraine in 1986 and Fukushima, Japan in 2011 when reactors overheated and exploded. The release of radioactivity resulted in numerous deaths, an increased rate of cancer, and visible mutations in plants and animals. In addition, nuclear fuel (96% uranium) is typically used in the reactor for 3–6 years. About once a year, 25–30% of the fuel is unloaded and replaced with fresh fuel. Recycling and reprocessing depleted fuel is possible, but fear of proliferation risks (the spread of nuclear weapon production capabilities) prevents some countries from doing so. This results in the production of radioactive waste that is long-lasting from hours to hundreds of thousands of years with the potential risk of leaking into the environment. Therefore, the favored “lower risk” option of a once-through (or single-use) fuel cycle is inherently unsustainable. In Germany, the use of reprocessed spent fuel has been subjected to the changing political preferences of the government in power. In addition, a study published in 2021 by the journal of Energy Policy found that nuclear power currently avoids 2–3% of total global GHG emissions per year, a value that is expected to decrease in the years 2020–2040 due to resource limitations of uranium and timeframe constraints for new nuclear technologies. A substantial expansion of nuclear power was found not possible and in my opinion, is for the better.
According to The Economist, the Russia-Ukraine war has resulted in the share of German oil, coal, and gas imports coming from Russia to decline from 35% to 12%, 50% to 8%, and 55% to 35% respectively. For this reason, Germany’s finance minister, Christian Lindner, regrettably expressed Germany’s dependency on energy imports from Russia. Notably, this reduction in fossil fuel imports shook Germany’s relationship with fossil fuels and this window of time can be used as an opportunity to suppress it from rebuilding. This would require all hands on deck from other, more sustainable, energy sources such as wind and solar power. This is a realistic plan of expansion as this sector of cleaner and safer technologies is predicted to grow from 40 percent of electricity production to 65 and 80 percent by 2030 and 2050 respectively. Some believe nuclear power should be included in this energy revolution, but given its demonstrated costs (even when excluding its total lifecycle contribution of CO₂ emissions) of proliferation risks, radioactive waste, and catastrophic accidents, I argue it is not part of Energiewende.
The Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) represents the center-left of the traffic light coalition in Germany. According to Why the Germans Do it Better by John Kampfner, the SPD has been torn on the subject of nuclear power as they need to keep their core working-class constituency content while not alienating their young urban voters. The working-class constituency means appealing to the nuclear and coal industries (as well as other fossil fuel industries) that are viewed as “real jobs for real men”. For this reason, the SPD had been enthusiastic about nuclear power because abundant and cheap energy allows for the employment of more people. However, the SPD joined the Green Party to end nuclear power in Germany as they observed three-quarters of voters were against nuclear power. Opposition to nuclear is now expressed by the Chancellor and SPD member, Olaf Scholz, who stated that the 6% of electricity generated by the three nuclear power plants is no reason to keep them. To meet the needs of all constituencies, the SPD would recommend that Germany revert to the legislation of 2010 that proposes the continued operation of currently running nuclear plants until 2036. The SPD would use this extended phase-out timeframe to guarantee a just transition where the nuclear and fossil fuel workforce are ensured job security in cleaner and safer industries. The SPD also views the extended phase-out as an opportunity to give Germany time to establish energy security given its energy crisis accelerated by the Russia-Ukraine war.
Energiewende. Growth and prosperity without oil, coal, gas, and uranium. A historical turning point the German language can capture in a single word.
