Germany has long had controversy surrounding nuclear power.

Some people wish to stop relying on a technology they see as risky, unsustainable, and a diversion from accelerating renewable energy.

But for some, closing nuclear power facilities is a rash decision. They see it as closing the door on a dependable source of low-carbon energy at a time when significant reductions in pollution that warms the globe are required.

The German government has remained steady throughout these arguments and despite last-minute requests to keep the reactors operating amid an energy crisis.

“The German government’s stance is unequivocal: nuclear power is not environmentally friendly. Additionally, it is not sustainable, according to Green Party supporter and German Federal Minister for Environment and Consumer Protection Steffi Lemke.

A new era of energy production is starting, she declared.

A long-planned strategy

The three plants’ closure—Emsland, Isar 2, and Neckarwestheim—marks the successful execution of a strategy started more than 20 years ago. Even ancient, though, are its roots.

Germany saw the emergence of a powerful anti-nuclear movement in the 1970s. Diverse groups joined forces to oppose brand-new power plants because they were worried about the dangers posed by the technology and, for some, its connection to nuclear weapons. The Green Party, which is currently a member of the ruling coalition, was born out of the movement.

The partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania in 1979 and the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, which resulted in a cloud of radioactive waste that spread to sections of Germany, were nuclear accidents that fueled the opposition.

The German government committed to phase out nuclear power and begin facility closures in 2000. However, when a new administration took office in 2009, it momentarily appeared as though nuclear power would be given a pass as a bridging technology to aid the nation’s transition to renewable energy.

And then Fukushima occurred.

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant’s three reactors melted down in March 2011 as a result of an earthquake and tsunami. The greatest nuclear disaster to 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.

Then-Chancellor Angela Merkel, a physicist who had previously supported nuclear power, 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 globe. She declared that Germany would speed up the phase-out of nuclear power, with older reactors being shut down immediately.

However, the Russian invasion of Ukraine introduced a new story element.

The German government postponed its intention to shut down the final three facilities in December 2022 due to concerns about its energy security without Russian gas. Some advised rethinking.

However, the administration refused, only agreeing to keep them going through April 15.

It’s a time of triumph for the anti-nuclear campaign.

According to Paul-Marie Manière, a spokeswoman for Greenpeace, “it is a great achievement for millions of people who have been protesting nuclear in Germany and throughout the world for decades.”

polarizing force
However, detractors of Germany’s program argue that it is illogical to stop using a low-carbon energy source as the effects of the climate problem worsen.

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

The main danger, according to her, is that fossil fuels take over the energy void left by nuclear. According to studies released last year, rises in coal have largely outweighed decreases in Germany’s nuclear energy since Fukushima.

Germany wants to use renewable energy sources, as well as gas and coal, to replace the roughly 6% of electricity produced by the three nuclear units.

Coal, the dirtiest of the fossil fuels, provides more than 30% of Germany’s energy, and the government has made contentious decisions to use coal to help ensure energy security.

Greta Thunberg and other protesters descended to the west German community of Lützerath in January in an unsuccessful attempt to stop its demolition for coal mining.

The opposite of what we need is to increase coal production, according to Stokes. She noted that while fossil fuels contribute to climate change, they also pose a health danger. According to a recent estimate, air pollution from fossil fuels causes 8.7 million deaths annually.

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,” especially given that renewable energy growth “remains sluggish.”

However, proponents of the nuclear ban assert that it will speed up the depletion of fossil resources in the long run.

Germany has committed to shutting down all of its coal-fired power plants by 2038, with some regions having a 2030 deadline. By the end of this decade, it wants to have 80% of its electricity come from renewable sources.

While more coal was added in the months that followed Fukushima, nuclear shutdowns have seen a significant push toward clean energy, according to Schreurs. She claimed that the urgency and demand could be what was needed to advance the development of renewable energy.

The closure, according to representatives of Germany’s renewable energy sector, will allow for increased investment in green energy.

According to Simone Peter, head of the German Renewable Energy Federation (BEE), Germany’s phase-out of nuclear energy is both a historic event and an urgent step in the country’s energy policy. It’s time to systematically arrange the renewable age and put an end to the nuclear age.

Schreurs emphasized the carbon pollution caused by uranium mining and the possibility of health issues for miners as reasons why the effects of nuclear power shouldn’t be disregarded. Additionally, she continued, it fosters dependence on Russia, a supplier of uranium for nuclear power plants.

Additionally, nuclear has demonstrated that it is vulnerable to the climate catastrophe. The rivers used to cool reactors become too hot during Europe’s brutal summer, forcing France to cut back on its nuclear power production.

A one million year issue

The deadly, highly radioactive waste, which could remain harmful for tens of thousands of years, must now be dealt with, and Germany must figure out what to do with it.

The radioactive waste is now housed in temporary storage close to the nuclear power stations that are being shut down. However, efforts are being made to identify a long-term site where the trash may be securely kept for a million years.

The location must be deep—several hundred meters below ground. Crystalline granite, rock salt, or clay rock are the only forms of rock that will work. It must not have any hazards of earthquakes or indications of subsurface rivers and must be geologically stable.

The procedure will probably be difficult, intricate, and incredibly protracted—possibly taking more than 100 years.

According to BGE, the Federal Company for the Disposal of Radioactive Waste, a definitive site won’t be selected until 2046 to 2064. It will then take decades to construct the repository, load it with waste, and seal it.

What actions are other nations taking?

Similar to Germany, several other nations are taking similar steps. Denmark decided not to build nuclear power facilities in the 1980s, Switzerland decided to phase down nuclear power in 2017, Italy shut down its final reactors in 1990, and Austria’s single nuclear facility has never been operated.

Others still want nuclear in the mix, though, given the Ukraine War, Soaring Energy Prices, and Pressure to Reduce Carbon Pollution.

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

Finland completed a new nuclear plant this year, while France is preparing six additional reactors. France currently generates around 70% of its energy from nuclear sources. Even Japan, which is still struggling with Fukushima’s effects, is thinking about restarting reactors.

The US, the largest nuclear power in the world, is also investing in nuclear energy and in March began operating Vogtle 3, a brand-new nuclear reactor in Georgia—the first in many years.

However, analysts argue that this is not the beginning of a nuclear build up. Vogtle 3 was launched six years later than expected and cost $30 billion, which was double the original estimate.

Making the economics work out is the main issue plaguing the entire nuclear business, and it is encapsulated in this statement. Building a new facility might cost a lot of money and take years. Even nuclear-friendly nations are suffering significant development challenges, according to Schreurs.

Nuclear power stations have an operating life of between 40 and 60 years, but many of them are getting older in Europe, the US, and other places. It’s getting close to crunch time for others as Germany ends its nuclear age, according to Schreurs.

“The question of whether nuclear power actually has a future will come up at some point.”

The post “A new era” has begun as Germany shuts down its remaining three nuclear power reactors appeared first on .