“It was a serious strategic mistake to phase out nuclear energy … we simply don’t have enough energy generation capacity,” Merz said.
Germany’s energy system now relies on state intervention to keep prices at acceptable levels. “To have acceptable market prices for energy production again, we would have to permanently subsidise energy prices from the federal budget,” Merz said, adding: “We can’t do this in the long run.”…
He added that the nuclear exit had contributed to high costs and complexity in Germany’s energy transition. “So we are now undertaking the most expensive energy transition in the entire world,” he said. “I know of no other country that makes things so expensive and difficult as Germany.”
That was somewhat foolish. Why do that when you already have domestic nuclear up and running? Rely on that instead, while you transition.
This is potentially recoverable. They could start up some of the nuclear plants again, if they wanted to. They should keep some on-line anyway. The plants are already built, so nuclear for them is zero-carbon.
Germany has a strong anti-nuclear position. That follows from the realization in the Cold War that they were ground zero when it was thought nukes could counter an attack from the Soviets. The nuke option was thought cheaper than boots on the ground.
The ban the bomb movement was strong there and the Greens are gaining in elections.
Re-activation of nuclear power plants will be difficult. They prefer wind and solar.
The decision of the German Bundestag on 30 June 2011 to phase out nuclear energy has paved the way for an orderly withdrawal from this high-risk technology in Germany. At the same time, the phase-out allowed a recommencement of the search for a final repository for high-level radioactive waste.
The nuclear disaster in Fukushima on 11 March 2011 was the cause for the vote in the German Bundestag – and the subsequent decision to phase out nuclear power.
The events in Japan triggered a socio-political debate on the continued use of nuclear energy. Following the catastrophic accident in March 2011, the German government immediately initiated the so-called “nuclear moratorium”: The safety of German nuclear power plants was to be re-evaluated within a fixed period of three months. Knowledge gained from the Fukushima accident equence was used to consider various scenarios.
Safety issues as drivers for nuclear phase-out
Safety was a paramount concern in the decision to phase out nuclear power: the use of nuclear energy causes highly dangerous radioactive radiation for humans and the environment, and leaves behind highly toxic waste. High safety precautions must be taken throughout the entire life cycle - from the extraction of the raw material uranium to the production of the fuel, the operation of nuclear power plants and final disposal. This is the only way to reduce risks to humans and the environment, and to prevent misuse.
Yet, in the past, there have been several serious accidents that had catastrophic consequences for society and the environment affected. This is why the German society concluded that the risks of this technology exceeded the benefits, and subsequently decided to phase-out the use of nuclear energy.
The question of final storage of high-level radioactive waste, which remains unresolved worldwide to this day, was a second important reason for phasing out the use of nuclear energy in Germany. For final storage encompasses more than just the end of reactor operations, it also covers the safe storage of the highly dangerous waste. So, what is going to happen to the high-level radioactive waste? The law stipulates that a site for a final repository is to be found within Germany in an open-ended, transparent procedure that involves the public.
Sure. I don’t happen to agree with their decision, but I was referring more to the planning of it all. If they are taking a power source (any source) offline, they should have the replacement sources up and running first. Seems like a bad idea to say “shut that down, and by the way, when are we going to get the new stuff online?”.
Obviously, the can shut them down if they like. It just seems like bad planning to put themselves in this position.
Solar power generation was up, but wind was down slightly. Total fossil fuel use was up a small amount.
From the link here, the carbon intensity of Germany’s electricity was 338 grams of CO2 per kwh in 2024. Since fossil fuel use in the power sector was about the same, Germany’s carbon intensity in 2025 was probably about the same as the prior year.
Compare Germany’s 338 grams/kwh to France at 41 grams/kwh. France, of course, gets most of its electricity from nuclear power, and only uses a small amount of fossil fuels in the power sector. Therefore, France’s carbon intensity is only about 12% that of Germany. Nuclear power is obviously the way to go if you want to decarbonize a country’s electricity system. (BTW, France is a net exporter of electricity, while Germany is now a net importer.)