After Japan’s nuclear disaster in March, Germany, one of the biggest and most thriving economies in the world, plan to shut down all of its nuclear reactors by 2022. Faced with public pressure, many regard it as a “knee-jerk” reaction, a move by Angela Merkel to regain support for the up and coming state elections [1]. It was only a few months ago that she decided to extend the life of 17 nuclear plants, but due to public concern it led to a major loss of her party’s power after 60 years of dominance, as many people did not want to extend the life of the nuclear reactors [2]. It highlights that, despite the Japanese incident, many people are starting to come to terms with safety and environmental concerns involving nuclear reactors.
Yet, while this may be fantastic news for those in support of efficient energy and technological advancements; the decision may have impeding consequences, not only on Germany, but also on other European nations. Nevertheless, with bold motives, Germany aims to cut electricity usage by 10% and double the share of renewable energy to 35% by 2020.
| Energy Source | % Of Electricity |
| Nuclear Energy | 22.3 |
| Coal | 42 |
| Natural Gas | 13.6 |
| Renewable Energies | 16.5 |
Table to show the percentage of energy supplied by various German sources prior to the plan to close nuclear plants.
Virtues
Many proponents support the change for the closure of the nuclear power plants, for instance, Greenpeace and Angela Merkel’s own opponent, the national Green Party.
Greenpeace nuclear advisor Shaun Burnie, stated that according to studies by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, renewable energy could deliver global electricity by 2050. According to him, “Germany is going to be ahead of its game and is going to make a lot of money [3].”
Claudia Roth, co-head of the national Green Party is adamant that the full closure of all power plants could be even earlier – 2017 [2]. The chancellor of Germany herself has implied that a shift to other sources of energy away from nuclear will be occurring, “we will generate our own electricity from other sources,” the chancellor told a press conference in Berlin [1].
Shortcomings
Despite the obvious advantages of shifting away from nuclear power, such as towards more energy efficient or renewable energy measures, there are often many shortcomings which do not arise in the initial stages – due to short term planning.
Blackouts
Germany could face widespread winter blackouts. Four firms which operate Germany’s large network of high-voltage power cables and pylons believe that the grid is already exhausted, particularly in the winter months when solar power is at a minimum [2]. Furthermore, unless wind is maintained, a lack of wind could result in large scale supply disruptions. The most effected would be Germany’s own industries, particularly the heavy industries in the south.
Opposition to Alternatives
Despite many Germans supporting anti-nuclear campaigns, some are also it seems, anti-pylon too. In order to meet the energy demands in the South, it has been proposed that wind farms in the north may be able to take up the slack. In order for this to work, a new grid of high voltage power cables is to be built (known by some as the “Energy Autobahn”) [4]. The problem lies with locals opposing the development of pylons for fear of it harming natural wildlife or for fear of it becoming an eyesore in Germany’s beautiful countryside – even if some of these locals are also against nuclear [4]. Germany has some very tough choices to face, particularly as renewable energy is not swift or cheap to set up.
Bridging the Gap
How can Germany bridge this gap?
To the bridge this gap, there must be better grid infrastructure, storage capacity and forward planning as well as a more pronounced rise in renewable supply; states EU energy commissioner, Günther Oettinger. Furthermore, “Germany’s energy policy will only work if there are improvements at the same time [1].”
Considering that approximately 23 percent and 17 percent of Germany’s zero-carbon energy came from nuclear and renewable energy respectively (see Table) – a total of 40 percent, this is one of the highest in the European Union. Subsequently, they must set the bench mark for further progress.
What is Germany doing to bridge this gap?
With big aims to cut electricity usage and increase the percentage contribution of renewable energies, the hope is that eventually the gap may be filled by wind energy or other eco-friendly energy sources; as mentioned previously, by as much as 35% by 2020. It would be a massive incentive for the German wind and solar power industries.
However, as mentioned, many people are at risk of blackouts, particularly if reliable renewable energy sources are not established in time (or enough to cover nuclear’s large 23 percent share). Therefore, there must be other sources available to aid this transition.
The government, now ironically, describes fossil fuel power as the “the new bridging technology” [5].
The government are also planning to build 20 gigawatts of fossil fuel power stations by 2020; including 9 gigawatts of coal by 2013. Some of which may not be fitted with carbon capture and storage [5].
Furthermore, despite insistence from the chancellor that Germany will not be relying on importing nuclear energy from other nations [1], this is exactly what Germany is doing. In April, Germany alone imported 43 percent more electricity from France at an additional cost of €60m ($86.6m) [6]. In addition, many analysts also stated that Germany will start to look towards the Czech Republic for more nuclear energy [4].
What does this mean for other European Nations?
According to Trevor Sikorski, head of environmental market research at Barclays Capital, this is equivalent to an extra 300 million tonnes of carbon dioxide between now and 2020 [5] Under the EU’s emission trading scheme, 300 million tonnes is more than the annual emissions of Italy and Spain combined together [5]. Germany had aimed to utilise other renewable energy sources, but with back lashes as highlighted above, as well as other effects such as the “rebound effect”; utilising renewable energy efficiently may prove more difficult than it seems. The “rebound effect” is the effect of residents using more energy as a result of improved efficiency, for example, turning up thermostats as a result of insulation which makes it cheaper to heat a house.
This could be counteracted however, with the EU’s new Energy Efficiency Directive. It calls for all energy companies to implement energy efficient measures which will reduce the amount of energy they will supply by 1.5 percent per year. This could cut emissions by 335 million tonnes by 2020. On the contrary, if EU members do somehow succeed in reducing emissions by 335 million tonnes through energy efficiency, all that effort will almost entirely be negated alone by Germany’s additional 300 million tonnes [5].
As highlighted by industry group German Atomic Forum many months ago, caution should be urged when it comes to abandoning nuclear power. This is because, “a quick and rash exit from German nuclear power would raise costs for the whole economy, make us miss climate goals, raise our reliance on fossil fuels and make our power supply less secure, meaning more power imports and problems with network stability,” said president Ralf Gueldner. “It would also spark intense debate in the European Union [2].”
This is precisely what may be happening. It also highlights the consequences political decisions may have on, not only the authoritative decision maker, but also on the country in question and its neighbours. For it appears that, it may have been better in the long term for Germany to retain its nuclear reactors after all.
[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/30/germany-to-shut-nuclear-reactors
[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/23/germany-nuclear-shutdown-winter-blackouts
[3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13592208
[4] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13257804
[6] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d27a57fe-8d2e-11e0-bf23-00144feab49a.html#axzz1UB5hybX7
