Germany’s accelerated phase-out of nuclear energy, known as “Atomausstieg,” represents a landmark decision in global energy policy and a unique case among major industrialized nations seeking carbon neutrality.

The origins of this policy lie in decades of public skepticism toward nuclear power, fueled by the environmental movement, influential political actors like the Green Party, and the legacy of major nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima (2011).

The deep-seated societal concern over reactor safety and unresolved nuclear waste management led to mounting political resolve against nuclear energy.

After the Fukushima disaster, Chancellor Angela Merkel reversed her previous support for nuclear and committed to closing all plants, arguing that nuclear power was incompatible with Germany’s environmental principles and long-term sustainability goals .

Before the shutdowns, nuclear power accounted for about 6% of Germany’s electricity generation.

Its elimination required replacing this stable, low-carbon source.

Initially, Germany increased its reliance on coal and natural gas to prevent supply shortfalls—contradicting its climate ambitions by boosting fossil fuel consumption and emissions.

This shift drew criticism from both domestic and international observers, who noted that losing nuclear strained the energy grid, threatened supply reliability, and contributed to elevated energy costs for households and businesses.

Surveys consistently reported that a majority of Germans disapproved of the shutdowns, citing fears over affordability and energy security .

Tensions escalated dramatically following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in early 2022.

Germany’s economy and energy system depended heavily on Russian natural gas.

The war brought severe disruption to Europe’s energy markets, raising the risk of winter supply shortages and spurring calls from industry, regional leaders in states such as Bavaria, and some federal politicians to reconsider the imminent nuclear exit.

The government responded by extending the operation of its last three reactors through the winter of 2022/23 for energy security reasons, but stood by its larger strategy.

In April 2023, these reactors were permanently shut down, returning regulatory focus to the rapid expansion of renewables .

The controversy over nuclear closures has grown within German society and politics.

The Green Party, an integral coalition partner, has made opposition to nuclear power a core value, minimizing extensions even during crises.

Yet the public mood is shifting: new surveys suggest increasing support, even for new reactors, a stark reversal from previous decades.

Regional industrial bases and business groups warn of threats to grid stability and economic competitiveness.

Despite mounting pressure, the federal government and its Green coalition partners rejected demands for reversing the phase-out, reiterating logistical, financial, and safety barriers to keeping Germany’s aging reactors open, and setting the objective to triple renewable energy deployment rates .

Germany’s nuclear exit stands out on the world stage.

While many countries—such as France, the United Kingdom, and several in Asia—are maintaining or expanding nuclear for climate and security reasons, Germany is moving in the opposite direction, betting on renewables alone to meet climate targets.

This divergence has fueled debate among policymakers and analysts regarding the feasibility and risks of phasing out nuclear during an ongoing energy transition, especially under crisis conditions .

The exit policy has significant financial and technical repercussions.

Decommissioning Germany’s nuclear plants has proven far more expensive and complicated than initially projected, raising concerns about cost overruns and the unresolved legacy of radioactive waste.

Even so, government planners insist that long-term risks—both environmental and operational—outweigh the temporary benefits of delaying closures .

In economic terms, the coupling of nuclear withdrawal and potential gas supply disruptions presented stark challenges.

Expert analysis warned that a complete Russian gas cutoff could shrink the German economy by up to 12% in a worst-case scenario and that retaining nuclear even temporarily might provide useful breathing room.

However, these arguments did not prevail against entrenched policy positions and operational obstacles, such as the loss of specialized staff, regulatory barriers, and deferred maintenance on remaining reactors .

In conclusion, Germany’s departure from nuclear power is the result of a unique blend of public anxiety, political will, and environmental advocacy.

The consequences of this strategy—reliance on fossil fuels, heightened energy prices, a tense political debate, and renewed attention to energy security amid geopolitical shocks—have fueled a complex, ongoing national conversation.

While opposition to nuclear energy remains strong among German leaders, a significant portion of the public and industry voices now question whether forgoing nuclear has made the transition to carbon neutrality harder and more precarious.

Germany’s experience continues to be closely watched as a test case for energy transitions worldwide .

Germany’s accelerated phase-out of nuclear energy, known as “Atomausstieg,” represents a landmark decision in global energy policy and a unique case among major industrialized nations seeking carbon neutrality.

Title:

Content: Read the history of the moment: why is Germany so entangled in nuclear power? | German News | DW | 14.04.2023
1.
Inhalt
2.
Navigation
3.
Weitere Inhalte
4.
Metanavigation
5.
Suche
6.
Choose from 30 Languages
Advertisement
German News
Read the history of the present: why is Germany so entangled in nuclear power?
Germany was proud of its nuclear power generation technology, but at the same time the technology has been so controversial that it has finally decided that April 15, 2023 is the date of withdrawal from nuclear power.
However, as the energy crisis caused by the Russian-Ukrainian war continues to intensify, the wisdom of the decision to say goodbye to nuclear energy has been widely discussed.
Germany ’ s nuclear policy is in dispute again
It all started with an "egg" - Germany's first nuclear reactor in Garching, near Munich, went into operation in October 1957.
Because the nuclear reactor, which belongs to the University of Munich, resembles an egg, it is nicknamed the "atomic egg".
It was a milestone in Germany's nuclear energy research and a symbol of Germany's resurgence after World War II.
The nuclear reactor, which was used for scientific purposes, remained in operation until 2000.
In 1957, Germany built its first nuclear reactor.
Three years later, in 1960, the first nuclear power plant for civilian use was built in the city of Kahl, on the banks of the Main River in Bavaria.
At that time, atomic energy was widely regarded as both safe and reliable. The 1973 oil crisis gave further impetus to the rapid development of nuclear energy in Germany.
The start of the anti-nuclear movement
Since it has been impossible to find a foolproof way to store nuclear waste, opponents have begun to question whether nuclear energy is really a clean energy source.
Thousands of protesters clashed with police during the construction of the Brockdorf nuclear power plant in the state of Shihe.
Since the 1970s, plans for the construction of the Brockdorf nuclear power plant have triggered numerous police and civil conflicts.
"Nuclear energy? No, thank you!" has become a rallying cry for environmentalists.
In the 1980s, a new political party, the Green Party, emerged in West Germany. Its members are mainly leftists, pacifists, environmentalists and anti-nuclear forces. In 1983, the Green Party entered the Bundestag.
In 1983, Green Party politicians Gert Bastian and Petra Kelly were elected to the Bundestag.
On March 28, 1979, a serious accident occurred at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania, United States. On April 26, 1986, a reactor at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine, Soviet Union, exploded, causing the worst nuclear disaster in history.
Radiation clouds spread throughout Europe.
The accident also marked a turning point in discussions about nuclear technology in Germany.
At the time, Germany was still divided.
In East Germany under the Communist Party, the public received almost no information about the nuclear accident and its effects.
West Germany, on the other hand, was in a state of confusion and politicians were helpless.
People were unprepared for a nuclear leak, and the government was unable to provide guidelines and response strategies for the time being.
A hastily formed crisis management team was also disbanded shortly afterwards.
The Chernobyl nuclear accident has caused widespread concern in Germany.
People are buying iodine.
A large quantity of fruit, vegetables and milk in the supermarket was ordered to be removed from the shelves because of concerns about nuclear radiation.
Children were banned from playing in the sand pools and citizens were warned not to go out in the rain.
Although the health effects of radiation were not detected in Germany, the accident led to the introduction of nationwide radiation monitoring in Germany, which eventually led to the establishment of the Federal Ministry of the Environment.
Plans to build a nuclear waste treatment plant in the Bavarian town of Wackersdorf have sparked serious riots.
The clashes left several protesters and civil servants dead and hundreds injured.
The project was finally halted in 1989, the first major victory of the German environmental movement.
And...
In 2011, protesters handcuffed themselves to the tracks in an attempt to block trains carrying nuclear waste.
Meanwhile, in northern Germany, Gorleben in Lower Saxony became a symbol of the struggle against nuclear waste, and the town was designated to temporarily store nuclear waste until a permanent storage site was identified.
The first shipment of nuclear waste arrived in the town on 24 April 1995.
A long farewell to nuclear power - Germany's nuclear withdrawal process after many setbacks
In 2001, Schroeder's center-left coalition government of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Green Party reached an agreement with major energy companies to phase out nuclear power.
All 19 nuclear power plants in Germany have been given operating timelines and the last one is required to be shut down by 2021.
In 2001, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder announced that Germany would phase out nuclear power generation.
In 2010, the center-right government led by Chancellor Angela Merkel withdrew the nuclear withdrawal agreement.
It also decided to extend the operating time of nuclear power plants.
However, the third major nuclear accident in the world has caused a change in Germany's nuclear energy policy. On March 11, 2011, the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan caused by the earthquake and tsunami.
The impact of the accident on Germany is even greater than that of Japan.
As a veteran physicist, German Chancellor Angela Merkel unexpectedly changed her usual stance on nuclear energy policy.
Merkel suddenly announced that the era of nuclear power in Germany will end by the end of 2022. On July 30, 2011, the German Bundestag voted to approve the resolution.
After years of fierce fighting, the Brockdorf nuclear power plant in the state of Ishih will finally become history in 2021 after 35 years of operation.
In 2017, Germany decided to start a nationwide search for a safe place to store highly radioactive nuclear waste, with the mission to be completed by 2031.
At the end of 2021, anti-nuclear activists celebrated the closure of a nuclear power plant in North Germany.
Rethinking the nuclear policy.
The war in Ukraine has made Germany anxious to get rid of its energy dependence on Russia, which has also reignited the already ironclad policy of denuclearization.
The coalition leader has spearheaded a proposal to extend the operating time of nuclear power plants to replace natural gas from Russia with nuclear power.
In August 2022, CDU Chairman Meltz and CSU Chairman Soder both put forward the idea of extending the time limit for nuclear power operations.
Christian Lindner, finance minister of the business-oriented Liberal Democratic Party (FDP), immediately backed a return to nuclear power.
His party is junior partner in a centre-left coalition with the Social Democrats (SPD) and the Greens.
The latter will find it difficult to agree to an extension because opposition to nuclear power is one of their core issues.
But in the summer of 2022, no one in Germany completely ruled out that possibility.
LDP finance minister Lindner, who is focused on business interests, was also quick to join the pro-nuclear camp.
But for the Green Party, which is also part of the ruling coalition, the possibility of agreeing to extend the operating time of nuclear power plants is slim, because opposition to nuclear power is their basic principle.
Anything is possible in Germany in 2022.
Can nuclear power be a climate savior?
Editor: This article was originally published in August 2022
© 2022 Deutsche Welle Copyright Notice: All content in this article is protected by copyright law and may not be used without special permission from Deutsche Welle.
Any misconduct will lead to recovery and criminal prosecution.
DW.COM

The origins of this policy lie in decades of public skepticism toward nuclear power, fueled by the environmental movement, influential political actors like the Green Party, and the legacy of major nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima (2011).

Title:

Content: Alert
The hot and cold reaction of the competition was obvious when Su Zhenchang and Lai Qingde helped the platform Chen
Why do many countries decide to reinvest in nuclear power?
【 Li Shulian / Editorial Department of North American Intellectual Property News 】
Recently, a number of countries that originally supported the decommissioning of nuclear plants have turned around and announced that they will extend the operation of their domestic nuclear plants. Not only that, but they will also invest tens of billions of dollars to create more large and small nuclear reactors.
That ’ s all because nuclear energy can effectively solve two of the world ’ s biggest crises: energy and climate change.
The energy crisis and climate change can be said to bring a breakthrough development opportunity for nuclear energy, the former to pursue energy diversity, the latter to pursue net zero emissions, and known as the best efficiency of green energy of nuclear energy of course become one of the mandatory items when formulating energy policies in many countries.
However, these major powers, including the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom and South Korea, have frozen their investment in nuclear power plants due to public doubts about nuclear safety caused by the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant earthquake, so that the relevant technology to build nuclear power plants has been surpassed by Russia and China.
However, this has not hindered the determination of many countries to restart nuclear power, on the road to a nuclear-free homeland, should the Chinese government also stop, look, listen?
Energy security concerns and recent spikes in energy prices, especially after Russia ’ s invasion of Ukraine, highlight the importance of a diverse mix of non-petrochemical and domestic energy sources.
Russia ’ s invasion of Ukraine has exacerbated an already tense global fuel market and continues to push up electricity prices.
According to the European Union ’ s Energy Regulatory Cooperation Agency (ACER), retail electricity prices have increased by an average of 30% year-on-year in February 2022, with the biggest price increases in regions where electricity generation is heavily dependent on natural gas, such as Madrid by 55% and Rome by 80%.
On the other hand, over the past few years, the number of countries pursuing Net Zero Emissions (NZE) has increased, with more than 70 countries covering 76% of the world ’ s energy-related CO2 emissions committing to net zero by 2022; more than 10 times more in four years, compared with only six countries committing to net zero at the end of 2018.
As countries move towards a net-zero future, renewable energy, especially wind and solar photovoltaics, is often seen as the largest source of electricity.
At the same time, however, a growing number of countries have announced their support for new nuclear power plant investment plans.
In February 2022, France announced plans to build six new large reactors starting in 2028 at a cost of around €50 billion, with an additional eight to be built by 2050, while committing €1 billion to develop innovative reactors, including small modular reactors by 2030.
China plans to continue its current pace of nuclear reactor construction in order to reach its goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2060.
South Korea ’ s new president, Yoon Seok Hyuk, has also made an election pledge to reverse South Korea ’ s nuclear phase-out policy by supporting the extension and reactivation of existing nuclear facilities at two sites, while seeking to build 10 nuclear plants overseas using South Korean technology by 2030.
Table 1.
Major Nuclear Energy Developments by Country in 2020-2022
Without nuclear energy, it would be difficult for the world to achieve net-zero emissions.
The deployment of nuclear energy has increased the diversity of the energy mix, which in addition to promoting the rise of variable renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, can greatly reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
In the 10 years since the first oil crisis, nearly 170 GW of nuclear power plants began construction; these plants still account for 40% of the nuclear capacity in operation today.
Many of the reasons why governments are restarting nuclear power today are also affected by the energy crisis.
On the other hand, as a mature large-scale low-emission energy source, nuclear energy can effectively help decarbonize the electricity supply.
In the International Energy Agency ’ s (IEA) net-zero 2050 setting, emissions from the energy sector are expected to fall by about 40% from 2020 to 2030, before falling back to net-zero in 2050.
This narrow but achievable path requires immediate and rigorous policy action by governments around the world to reshape energy systems in many ways.
In reality, extending the service life of a nuclear power plant is the most cost-effective and integral part of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.
Despite the fact that renewable energy already dominates nearly 90% of the net zero-emission energy supply, nuclear energy still plays an important role.
Today, around 260 GW (63%) of nuclear power plants worldwide have been in use for more than 30 years and are nearing the end of their initial operating license.
Nuclear power plants that have extended their service in the past three years account for about 10% of the world ’ s nuclear power plants. By 2030, the number of nuclear power plants operating in developed economies could shrink by a third.
More than half of the nuclear power plants are now able to extend their service lives for net-zero emissions, reducing the need for other low-emission options by nearly 200 GW.
By 2030, the capital cost of most extended nuclear power plants will be around $500 to $1,100 per kilowatt (kW), which is extremely competitive compared to solar and wind in most regions.
Nuclear power plays an important role in the path to net-zero emissions.
Nuclear power will double from 413 GW at the beginning of 2022 to 812 GW by 2050 in the net-zero emissions journey; and 27 GW per year between now and 2030.
If countries do not consider the extension of nuclear power plants or the construction of new nuclear power plants, the share of nuclear power in total generation will fall from 10% in 2020 to 3% in 2050, so that solar and wind energy need to fill this gap, not only need higher capital investment, but also increase the uncertainty of energy supply.
If a country like Taiwan has congenital restrictions on developing renewable energy, it needs to be filled with low-carbon energy sources such as natural gas, and the cost is even more substantial.
The contribution of nuclear energy to safe and low-emission power systems is not valued
IEA data show that nuclear power currently operates in 32 countries with a capacity of 413 GW, which could reduce global CO2 emissions by 1.5 gigatons (gigatons) and 180 billion cubic meters (bcm) of natural gas demand annually.
While wind and solar are leaders in alternative fossil fuels, they also need to be complemented by scalable resources; as the second largest source of low-emission power after hydropower, nuclear power with scalable and growth potential has become an option for many countries.
However, the current power market design fails to fully reflect the two major benefits of nuclear power.
First, nuclear power is a scalable resource that avoids costly economic and social harm from power outages when the average power supply system load approaches the level of available supply capacity.
In addition, nuclear power is low-emission green energy, but most electricity markets do not reward the low-carbon nature of nuclear power. While many countries support clean energy production, such as production and investment tax credits and subsidized electricity prices, nuclear power is excluded from subsidies or other subsidy mechanisms available for wind and solar.
The Fukushima nuclear disaster can be avoided, and it is not advisable to waste food because of choking.
Some countries have ruled out nuclear energy in the green energy option, mainly due to concerns about safety and nuclear waste management, and these countries have decided to phase out nuclear power mainly due to public safety concerns.
In the wake of the Three Mile Island nuclear leak, the failure of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor, and three major accidents at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan, public support for nuclear power in many countries has weakened significantly.
Countries that retain and continue to develop nuclear energy also strongly demand higher safety standards at their nuclear plants.
The 2011 accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant prompted countries to reassess and strengthen nuclear safety and emergency preparedness. Many countries have conducted safety inspections or pressure tests on existing reactors, and have required some types of reactors to undergo safety modifications.
These considerations have also led some countries to adjust their nuclear power use plans.
Germany, for example, has built 36 nuclear reactors with a total capacity of 30 GW, which accelerated the phase-out of all of them in the wake of the Fukushima disaster. Most of the reactors have now been shut down, and the three reactors still in operation will be closed by the end of 2022.
Other European countries, such as Spain, Sweden and Switzerland, have also announced phasing out or not renewing their nuclear plants.
In Japan, many of the nuclear plants that were shut down after the Fukushima accident have not yet been restarted, and the share of nuclear power generation has fallen from a high of 35% in 2002 to about 5% today.
The Fukushima accident raised global concerns about the risks and potential costs of a nuclear disaster, leading to the decision to idle or shut down other reactors and increase thermal power generation, resulting in higher import costs for fossil fuels.
However, in response to the Fukushima disaster, the official investigation concluded that the accident should have been foreseen and prevented. [1]
The Independent Commission of Inquiry into the Nuclear Disaster has confirmed that the structure of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant cannot withstand the impact of the March 11, 2011 earthquake and tsunami.
On the other hand, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant was not prepared for a serious accident; in fact, both Tepco and the regulatory authorities were aware of the risks posed by such natural disasters, but neither took any precautions.
The Commission noted that the structure of Unit 1 of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant could not withstand the strong earthquakes and tsunamis caused by 311, and that the specifications of the plant lacked sufficient seismic and tsunami strength because (1) the guidelines for the construction of Units 1 to 3 of the plant were from the late 1960s, so the guidelines for the construction were inadequate, and (2) the area around the plant was considered to be seismic activity. The smallest, never even experienced earthquake damage.
Based on this assessment, the safe tolerance level for the maximum seismic acceleration in the seismic design is set at 265 Gal, [2] with very low seismic resistance.
In addition, the lack of countermeasures to cope with the tsunami is also one of the causes of the nuclear disaster.
The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant was built in 1967, based on seismological knowledge at the time and the possibility of core damage in such a tsunami situation. However, the early seismological knowledge was far from adequate for the emergency that occurred on 311 in 2011.
Stop, Look and Listen on the Road to a Non-Nuclear Home
As the development of renewable energy failed to meet the target, China's original 2025 renewable energy accounted for 20% of the target has been determined to be postponed to October 2026, proof that the policy should be adjusted according to the actual situation; the same, on the road to non-nuclear homes, the government should stop, look, listen, and not ignore the actual situation has been moving forward.
The general public, too, should learn more about nuclear and renewable energy to make informed decisions.
Stop: Since the Russo-Ukrainian War, the world situation has changed rapidly, seriously affecting the supply of raw materials and prices, and policymakers should stop and rethink.
Look: Reviewing established energy policies, especially the bottleneck in the development of renewable energy, is a major obstacle to the pursuit of net zero emissions, and seeing the goal of 60 to 70% of total electricity generation by 2050 is almost impossible, should we see how other countries respond and make early adjustments?
Listen: Please listen to the suggestions and advice of the business community, the business community representatives unanimously believe that the government's national energy policy must be reviewed, in the energy structure should not exclude nuclear energy, even if the four nuclear power, at least to consider a new generation of nuclear energy, will be listed as an option.
[3] Has the government listened?
[This article is not finished, please see the full content of "North American intellectual rights" 317: "energy series report" why many countries decided to re-nuclear arms?
* If you would like to reprint this article, please contact the North American Intellectual Property Journal
[For details, please refer to North American Intellectual Property Journal No. 317; welcome to subscribe to North American Intellectual Property Journal e-newsletter.]
Reference Materials:
Nuclear Power and Secure Energy Transitions, International Energy Agency, IEA Publications, June 2022
The official report of The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission, The National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission, 2012.
Remarks:
1.
The official report of The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission, The National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission, 2012.
2.
Gal is a unit of acceleration.
3.
Taiwan ’ s energy structure business sector: options for a new generation of nuclear energy, Business Times Tam Shu-chen 2022.06.26
Extended reading
Russian missile strikes nuclear power plant again! Ukraine: Less than 300 meters from reactor
75% of French support nuclear energy
Zaporizhia Nuclear Power Plant is safe for the time being
IAEA urges Russia to withdraw from Zaporozhye nuclear power plant
Related News
Why do many countries decide to reinvest in nuclear power?
Recently, a number of countries that originally supported the decommissioning of nuclear plants have turned around and announced that they will extend the operation of their domestic nuclear plants. Not only that, but they will also invest tens of billions of dollars to create more large and small nuclear reactors.
That ’ s all because nuclear energy can effectively solve two of the world ’ s biggest crises: energy and climate change.
The energy crisis and climate change can be said to bring a breakthrough development opportunity for nuclear energy, the former to pursue energy diversity, the latter to pursue net zero emissions, and known as the best efficiency of green energy of nuclear energy of course become one of the mandatory items when formulating energy policies in many countries.
However, these major powers, including the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom and South Korea, have frozen their investment in nuclear power plants due to public doubts about nuclear safety caused by the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant earthquake, so that the relevant technology to build nuclear power plants has been surpassed by Russia and China.
However, this has not hindered the determination of many countries to restart nuclear power, on the road to a nuclear-free homeland, should the Chinese government also stop, look, listen?
IP Dictionary Patent Application Withdrawn
Withdrawal of a patent application, subject to exceptions, is in principle the freedom of the applicant, the applicant may withdraw his application at any time before the trial or punishment of the patent application.
In order to withdraw a patent application, the applicant should submit an application in writing. If there are more than two applicants, the application should be withdrawn by all the applicants.
China ’ s digital collection industry should set a red line as soon as possible
Avoidance.
This has been the consensus when China's blockchain technology is popularized in various fields, but it will inevitably be abused by some lawless or speculative individuals or units.
Analyses of drug precursors
Drugs are extremely important in our daily lives, and the reason why various drugs have different therapeutic effects is mainly due to their unique chemical structure.
Drugs for mood disorders, epilepsy drugs and cancer drugs, for example, all have different specific chemical structures, making them very different from the diseases they can treat.
U.S. Senators Propose Amendments to 35 U.S.C. 101 Patent Eligibility Requirements
U.S. Senator Thom Tillis has proposed a new amendment to the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2022, S.4734, to amend 35 U.S.C. 100 (b), add 35 U.S.C. 100 (k), and rewrite 35 U.S.C. 101. A new round of policy tug of war has officially begun.
The Rise of Green Consumption: Sustainable Trends in the Food Industry
Global consumers are becoming more concerned about the climate, and the food industry is beginning to see the emergence of “Climavores ”, which is to choose food from food ingredients or processes that take into account the climate impact. Google search has also found that searches for different food ingredients and climate have doubled and continued to increase. New ‘ sustainable ’ dietary needs are taking shape …
Product recommendation
udn Forum

The deep-seated societal concern over reactor safety and unresolved nuclear waste management led to mounting political resolve against nuclear energy.

After the Fukushima disaster, Chancellor Angela Merkel reversed her previous support for nuclear and committed to closing all plants, arguing that nuclear power was incompatible with Germany’s environmental principles and long-term sustainability goals .

Title:

Content: “There is no excuse for the rich West to be oblivious to the global debt crisis. ” – The Guardian
We start with an opinion piece by Larry Elliott, the Guardian ’ s economic editor, entitled “The wealthy West has little excuse for finally waking up to the global debt crisis. ”
“After a decade or more of their obsession with their own problems, countries in the wealthy West have begun to pay attention to the threat of a looming debt crisis in the poorer parts of the world, ” he says at a meeting of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in Washington this week.
The good news is that debt has risen to the highest level on the policy agenda and is seen as a problem that needs to be regulated, IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva said about the need for distressed countries to help: “Help them deal with the debt burden, which has made the shocks of past years more difficult; and help ensure that the IMF can continue to support them in the years to come. ”
The bad news, according to Elliott, is that Georgieva ’ s appeal has not yet been heeded, as rich countries are still primarily interested in their own problems.
The geopolitical rivalry between the United States and China is also not helping.
Creditor countries may wake up to the idea that there is a debt problem but it is far from a solution.
Talk is not like work. ”
Achim Steiner, director of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), said: “There are more than 50 countries on his radar that can default very quickly. ”
Steiner believes that the UN has no chance of meeting its ambitious 2030 development goals, unless there is urgent action.
The volume of lending by the private sector has made attempts to restructure or write off debt more complex than in the past.
At the time of the HIPC initiative, creditors tended to be either individual governments or multilateral organizations such as the World Bank.
Skip the podcast and keep reading.
Podcast
BBC Extra
A weekly podcast that presents humanitarian stories about the Arab world and its youth.
Loops
Podcast End
“But since the global financial crisis, many countries, especially middle-income countries, have borrowed heavily in financial markets, taking advantage of very low interest rates to finance domestic projects. ”
After the setback of the COVID-19 epidemic, low- and middle-income countries have since been hit by two other undesirable shocks: the war in Ukraine, which led to higher food and fuel prices, and the sharp increase in central bank interest rates in large Western economies.
The result is that debt servicing has become much more expensive, with many countries now frozen out of financial markets altogether.
Steiner said: "The issue is not financial but political.
The United States has mobilized $400 billion to secure Silicon Valley Bank deposits.
This is more than the developing world has received in three years.
It took the Swiss government less than 48 hours to find 100 billion Swiss francs to secure the rescue of one of its banks.
“The lesson of the recent banking crises is clear.
Rich countries can act fast enough when they want to, ” the writer concludes.
Fears of Macron ’ s politics
We turn to another Financial Times opinion piece by Alain Beatty, a trade writer, entitled “The Risks of Emmanuel Macron ’ s Strategic Insistence. ”
Macron ’ s focus on keeping a distance from both Washington and Beijing in pursuit of the EU ’ s vague “strategic autonomy ” is not an innovation among European policymakers, but geopolitical Europe enthusiasts need to recognize that the lack of unity and trust within the EU, rather than the sinister manipulation by Washington and Beijing, is the main obstacle.
“We ’ ve already seen this happen in trade policy, which is one area where the EU has long had the ability to act collectively.
In the same way that there is nothing stopping European governments from increasing military spending and playing a greater geopolitical role, the bloc can certainly increase its ability to use trade to project its strategic influence.
But while France has been keen to create new tools for intervening in trade and investment, other member states recognize that the views and interests of Paris are not necessarily those of the bloc as a whole.
“In recent years, the European Commission has carefully designed a range of trade instruments to confirm the bloc ’ s geo-economic weight.
The most politically salient is the anti-coercion tool ECI, which will allow the EU to use a wide range of trade and investment measures to retaliate against the bullying of trading partners.
France has strongly supported all this activity, and has also called for the creation of new EU central funds to pursue industrial policy.
“But the Commission will struggle to use this set of tools if there is opposition from other member states that are mindful of their export interests or distrust in using trade tools to manage a centralized strategic policy.
A few days before Macron ’ s trip, the Commission succumbed to pressure from some EU governments, including Germany, and gave member states a major role in determining the use of ECI.
Berlin instinctively avoids confrontation that could damage German exports and investments abroad.
There have also been more principled objections from liberal member states including Sweden and the Czech Republic, sceptical of attempts to politicize trade policy and the likelihood that it will be overly influenced by certain governments.
Macron inadvertently contributed to these concerns, especially as he unnerved some other EU governments two years ago with a clear orientation toward a major investment deal with China, “leaving a legacy of caution. ”
“Attempting to push a union with divergent views to adopt a single approach to a specific global issue is unlikely to produce long-term results. ”
German split on energy policy
We remain with an article by Laura Bettel, the Financial Times correspondent in Berlin, entitled “Germany is being torn apart by energy policy with the closure of nuclear plants. ”
Bethel said Germany ’ s last remaining nuclear power plants were shut down on Saturday, “marking a watershed moment in a country that has long had deep doubts about atomic energy. ”
Anti-nuclear activists hailed the shutdown of three reactors as a victory after a temporary delay following the start of the Russian-Ukrainian war that forced Berlin to look for alternatives to Russian gas.
Critics see the shutdown as an act of madness at a time when Europe ’ s energy supply remains precarious and the world is struggling to stop using fossil fuels.
After decades of anti-nuclear protests, the decisive moment came in 2011 when Chancellor Angela Merkel reversed an earlier decision to extend the life of the country ’ s nuclear plants until 2036, bringing the phase-out date to 2022.
The anti-nuclear movement in former West Germany dates back to the 1970s, when a popular campaign succeeded in stopping the construction of a nuclear power plant in the southwestern village of Weil.
The nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island in the United States in 1979 and at Chernobyl in 1986 fuelled that movement.
But German public opinion shifted after the Russo-Ukrainian War: an August 2022 poll from Der Spiegel found that 67 percent of Germans supported a five-year extension of the country ’ s nuclear plants.
41% supported the construction of new plants.
In a similar poll three decades ago, only 3% said yes.
But the German Green Party, now part of the three-way coalition government led by Olaf Schulz, only agreed to postpone the shutdown for a few months to fill any gap caused by the winter energy crisis.
“The way in which Germany has chosen to phase out nuclear power, and step back from fossil fuels as a bridging gap even as renewables increase dramatically, has been highly controversial. ”

Before the shutdowns, nuclear power accounted for about 6% of Germany’s electricity generation.

Title:

Content: Home / News / World /  Germany quits nuclear power; shuts final 3 plants
Back

Germany has shut its final three nuclear plants, marking the end of the country's end of nuclear era that has spanned more than 60 years.

Nuclear power has long been contentious in Germany.

The move has come as Germany's eyes achieve its green goal. Steffi Lemke, Germany’s Federal Minister for the Environment and Consumer Protection and a Green Party member, "The position of the German government is clear: nuclear power is not green. Nor is it sustainable".

Closure of three nuclear plant's history:

Germany shut three plants-- Emsland, Isar 2, and Neckarwestheim, representing the culmination of a plan set in motion more than 20 years ago.

During the 1970s, a strong anti-nuclear movement emerged in Germany. The movement gave birth to the green party, which is now part of governing coalition.

However, it was in the 2000s the German government pledged to phase out nuclear power and start shutting down plants.

But in 2009, a new government came to power and it seemed brief as if nuclear would get a reprieve as a bridging technology to help the country move to renewable energy.

Then Fukushima happened. In 2011, an earthquake and tsunami caused three reactors of the Fukushima Daiichi power plant to melt down.

Three days later then-Chancellor Angela Merkel who was previously pro-nuclear, announced Germany would accelerate a nuclear phase-out, with older plants shuttered immediately.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine provided another plot twist.

Germany isn’t the only country committed to walking away from nuclear — Italy gave up the technology in 1990, and Lithuania recently struck a deal to dismantle its Soviet-era reactors, which have sat idle for over a decade. But in many advanced economies, nuclear is experiencing a resurgence.

On Sunday, Finland will start regular power production at Europe’s newest and biggest reactor. The 1,600-megawatt Olkiluoto-3 unit that faced years of delays had been planned to enter commercial production on Monday. France is planning to build at least six new reactors by 2050 as well as experiment with smaller, modular ones. The UK has similar ambitions. And even in Japan, after a decade of paralysis following the nuclear accident in Fukushima, the public is warming up to the use of nuclear power. The Japanese government wants to restart reactors that have sat idle since the disaster and to extend the lifespan of existing units.

Catch all the Business News, Market News, Breaking News Events and Latest News Updates on Live Mint. Download The Mint News App to get Daily Market Updates.
More Less
Recommended For You
×
Get alerts on WhatsApp
Set Preferences My Reads Watchlist Feedback Redeem a Gift Card Logout

Its elimination required replacing this stable, low-carbon source.

Initially, Germany increased its reliance on coal and natural gas to prevent supply shortfalls—contradicting its climate ambitions by boosting fossil fuel consumption and emissions.

Title:

Content: The people are not particularly happy with the government ’ s choice.
recommendations
Germany has completely abandoned nuclear power, turning off the last three power units located at the Emsland nuclear power plant (Lower Saxony), Necarwesteim-2 (Baden-Württemberg), Isar-2 (Bavaria).
Now the country has only to get rid of nuclear waste.
advertising
The decision to phase out nuclear power came from then-Chancellor Angela Merkel after the disaster of 2011, when the accident at the Fukushima-1 nuclear power plant in Japan, which killed at least 15.9 thousand people.
Initially, it was planned to stop nuclear reactors on December 31, 2022, but due to rising energy prices, the German government delayed this until mid-April 2023.
The nuance is that in the near future, Germany will have to rely on coal and gas, which have a negative impact on the environment.
Of the advantages, only that you need to compensate a little - 6% of electricity generation, which was just those nuclear reactors.
recommendations
According to YouGov, two-thirds of Germans do not support the government ’ s decision to replace the cheap “peaceful atom ”.
For the post accrued remuneration
This material is written by a visitor to the site, and a reward is accrued for it.
2
Popular news

This shift drew criticism from both domestic and international observers, who noted that losing nuclear strained the energy grid, threatened supply reliability, and contributed to elevated energy costs for households and businesses.

Surveys consistently reported that a majority of Germans disapproved of the shutdowns, citing fears over affordability and energy security .

Title:

Content: Chernobyl and the war: how the events in Ukraine prompted Germany to abandon nuclear energy
Greenpeace activist at a protest against nuclear power in Berlin, Germany.
Photo by REUTERS / Nadja Wohlleben
The end of the atomic age.
This weekend, Germany, as promised, shut down its last nuclear power plants.
On Sunday night, the Germans decommissioned three stations: Izar 2 in Bavaria, Necarwesteim-2 in Baden-Württemberg and Emsland in Lower Saxony.
Nuclear power plants, which have recently produced about 5% of the country ’ s electricity, have been shut down as part of the so-called “energy transition. ”
Its goal is to completely switch to green energy by 2035, that is, to produce electricity from renewable sources.
Read also:
The decision to finally abandon the peaceful atom was given to the German authorities not easy.
A week ago, in political Berlin, there were calls to postpone the closure of the reactors for at least a few months, so as not to jeopardize the security of energy supply in the country.
Moreover, the temporary continuation of the work of the nuclear power plant of Chancellor Olaf Scholz was requested by both the opposition Christian Democrats and the liberals included in the ruling coalition.
Most Germans did not support the closure of the nuclear power plant.
According to sociologists, about 60% of the country ’ s residents called the government ’ s decision to abandon the peaceful atom wrong.
The reason is obvious: people are afraid of further increases in electricity prices, which have literally exploded.
Farewell to the atom: the Ukrainian factor
In fact, the decision to close all German nuclear power plants was made in 2011 by the government of Angela Merkel after the accident at the Japanese nuclear power plant Fukushima.
But the discussion about the abandonment of nuclear power began much earlier — in 1986, after the disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant.
The accident sparked widespread protests against the use of the peaceful atom, and after Chernobyl, the now ruling Social Democratic Party announced that it would support the closure of all German nuclear power plants and enshrined this position in its political program.
Events in Ukraine also affected the timing of the closure of the nuclear power plant.
Germany planned to shut down all its nuclear power plants by the end of 2022.
However, after a full-scale Russian attack on Ukraine, the operation of the reactors was decided to extend for several more months.
Germany, which took the course of abandoning all Russian energy resources, was afraid of problems with energy supply.
Bavarian exception: will one of the richest lands in Germany be allowed to restart nuclear power plants
In the final rejection of the peaceful atom, it seems, not all German politicians believe.
At least regional.
The prime minister of Bavaria - one of the richest German states - Markus Seder has already said that he will ask the federal government to reconsider its decision.
And this is a few hours after the closing of the last nuclear power plant!
Seder wants the Bavarians to make an exception – allowed them to continue to operate the nuclear power plant “Izar-2 ”, located on the territory of the earth.
Like, now, in times of energy crisis, to abandon nuclear energy is not only risky, but also stupid.
That can be done a little later.
"Bavaria demands that the federal government take responsibility for the continued operation of nuclear power.
Until the crisis is over and the country has switched to renewable energy, we must use all forms of energy before the end of the decade.
Anyone who, like the ruling coalition, hopes that the next winter will be as mild as the previous one, acts extremely naive and careless for an industrial country like Germany, ” said Seder.
And he promised that in the case of a positive decision from Berlin, Bavaria is ready to take responsibility for the operation of the nuclear power plant.
The Bavarian prime minister thought about other lands.
It requires the government to develop and submit a plan for the reactivation of disconnected nuclear power plants.
If necessary, nuclear power plants will be able to resume their work quickly.
Official Berlin has already responded to the calls of the Bavarian Prime Minister – the Minister for Environmental Protection advised Zeder not to engage in political populism.
Non-peaceful atom: Germany wants sanctions against Russian nuclear energy
On the day of the closure of their own nuclear power plants, the Germans also mentioned the nuclear energy of the aggressor country of Russia.
Vice-Chancellor and Minister of Economy of Germany Robert Gabeck proposed to impose sanctions against the nuclear industry of the Russian Federation.
At the EU level.
For example, to include penalties in the next, already eleventh, sanctions package, the development and coordination of which the Europeans will begin in the near future.
“We have seen that Russia purposefully uses dependence in the energy sector for pressure.
Therefore, the federal government called on the European Commission to impose sanctions on the civilian nuclear sector.
Nuclear technology is an extremely sensitive area, and Russia can no longer be perceived as a reliable partner here, ” Gabek said.
What sanctions are we talking about – the politician did not specify.
However, in early April, after a visit to Ukraine, he proposed to impose sanctions against states that buy uranium from Russia for their nuclear power plants.
Not immediately, but after the transition.
“It is important to start and not be afraid of decisive actions in this area, ” Gabek explained.
The EU ’ s dependence on Russia ’ s nuclear sector is really serious.
About 20% of the uranium for their nuclear power plants EU countries receive from Russia.
Bulgaria, Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic are completely dependent on these supplies, that is, 100%.
On the sale of uranium in the European Union, Russia earns 450 million euros a year.
Topical on the topic
Children Hub is a safe way to adapt Ukrainian children and migrants in the EU
Over a thousand children from 3 to 15 years old are given free employment in Warsaw
Help develop CHILDREN HUB

Tensions escalated dramatically following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in early 2022.

Germany’s economy and energy system depended heavily on Russian natural gas.

The war brought severe disruption to Europe’s energy markets, raising the risk of winter supply shortages and spurring calls from industry, regional leaders in states such as Bavaria, and some federal politicians to reconsider the imminent nuclear exit.

The government responded by extending the operation of its last three reactors through the winter of 2022/23 for energy security reasons, but stood by its larger strategy.

In April 2023, these reactors were permanently shut down, returning regulatory focus to the rapid expansion of renewables .

The controversy over nuclear closures has grown within German society and politics.

The Green Party, an integral coalition partner, has made opposition to nuclear power a core value, minimizing extensions even during crises.

Yet the public mood is shifting: new surveys suggest increasing support, even for new reactors, a stark reversal from previous decades.

Regional industrial bases and business groups warn of threats to grid stability and economic competitiveness.

Title:

Content: Russia threatens to cut natural gas supplies, sparking debate over extension of German nuclear power plant
FRANKFURT, April 23 (AFP) German government economic adviser Jens Grimm said today that Germany should extend the service life of its nuclear power plants to avoid "extreme conditions" and that Russia's suspension of natural gas supplies could cause the German economy to shrink by 12%.
Advertisement
Veronika Grimm, a member of the German government ’ s Council of Economic Advisers, told Funke Media that extending the service life of nuclear reactors currently in operation in Germany might “provide some breathing space. ”
After the 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan, Germany decided to phase out nuclear power, and the last three nuclear plants in the country will be decommissioned by the end of this year.
In extreme cases, the German economy could shrink by as much as 12 percent if Russia cut gas supplies.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz told the Muenchener Merkur newspaper on Wednesday that it would be "unworkable" to keep the plants running.
Conservative Bavarian Prime Minister Markus Soeder, who also pushed for the plant ’ s extension, said this week that it was “of course ” possible.
But the boss of the German energy company RWE, which runs one of the three nuclear plants currently in service, told Die Welt that it was “too late ”.
Apart from safety issues, he said, the issue of access to fuel rods is also an obstacle to the operation of these plants after the end of this year.

Despite mounting pressure, the federal government and its Green coalition partners rejected demands for reversing the phase-out, reiterating logistical, financial, and safety barriers to keeping Germany’s aging reactors open, and setting the objective to triple renewable energy deployment rates .

Germany’s nuclear exit stands out on the world stage.

While many countries—such as France, the United Kingdom, and several in Asia—are maintaining or expanding nuclear for climate and security reasons, Germany is moving in the opposite direction, betting on renewables alone to meet climate targets.

This divergence has fueled debate among policymakers and analysts regarding the feasibility and risks of phasing out nuclear during an ongoing energy transition, especially under crisis conditions .

The exit policy has significant financial and technical repercussions.

Decommissioning Germany’s nuclear plants has proven far more expensive and complicated than initially projected, raising concerns about cost overruns and the unresolved legacy of radioactive waste.

Title:

Content: In a stark revelation, the World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR) has outlined the severe challenges faced by the global nuclear power sector in recent years. The report, covering developments up to mid-2023, highlights a significant decline in nuclear production, with its share dropping to the lowest point in four decades. This decline is attributed to a combination of factors including national policy shifts, economic pressures and the rapid growth of renewable energy alternatives.

Global nuclear production and generation reaches new low

The WNISR points out that global nuclear power generation experienced a notable 4% decline, reaching a level not seen since the mid-1990s. Outside of China, the decrease was even more pronounced, at 5%, taking the global nuclear energy share of commercial gross electricity generation in 2022 down to 9.2%. This marks the most substantial drop since the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster in 2012 and a record low in the past four decades. It is noteworthy that this share is now little more than half of its peak of 17.5% in 1996.

Several major nuclear-producing nations faced significant challenges in 2022 and mid-2023, contributing to the overall hit on the global nuclear landscape.

The US saw its nuclear share of commercial electricity generation drop to 18.2%, the lowest level in 25 years. France experienced a drop in nuclear generation below its 1990 level, turning into a net importer of electricity for the first time since 1980. However, the country seems motivated to rectify the situation, recently leading a group of 20 countries in declaring to “triple nuclear energy capacity from 2020 by 2050” at COP28 in Dubai.

Belgium witnessed the closure of two reactors, in September 2022 and January 2023, with three more slated for closure by 2025. Germany saw the closure of its last three operating reactors on 15 April 2023, completing the phase-out policy initiated in 2011.

The report notes that the number of closed power reactors reached 212 units as of mid-2023, with 22 fully decommissioned and 11 released from regulatory control. With this, the report indicates that 407 reactors with a total capacity of 365GW were operational worldwide – a decrease of four reactors compared with the previous year and 31 units below the peak observed in 2002.

How well do you really know your competitors?

Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.

Company Profile – free sample

Thank you!

Your download email will arrive shortly

Not ready to buy yet? Download a free sample

We are confident about the unique quality of our Company Profiles. However, we want you to make the most beneficial decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by submitting the below form

By GlobalData

Economic challenges and renewable competition

Nuclear power faces increasing economic challenges, with Lazard modelling indicating that, at discount rates over 5.4%, it becomes the most expensive generator in terms of the levelized cost of energy (LCOE).

National developments of major nuclear-producing countries reflect this reality. The report highlights massive subsidies in the US, with state-level taxpayer-funded subsidies estimated to exceed $15bn by 2030. The UK, now operating only nine nuclear units, has seen cost estimates for the two Hinkley Point C reactors soar to $44bn (£34.98bn) and grid connection delayed until June 2027. South Korea’s state-owned utility, KEPCO, recently faced a record loss of $25bn (33.01trn won), with a 32% rise in net debt to an unprecedented $149bn.

The report also underscores the underestimated hidden costs associated with nuclear power, including decommissioning expenses and liabilities for accidents. Decommissioning costs in Germany, Italy and Lithuania, all nuclear phase-out countries, were estimated to be orders of magnitude higher than international estimates. Meanwhile, the Japanese Government estimated the cost of the 2011 Fukushima accidents at an astonishing $223bn (Y32.62trn) – the largest in the world.

Nuclear finances are even more alarming when compared with renewable alternatives. Renewable energy continues to outpace nuclear power, with total investment in non-hydro renewable electricity capacity reaching a record $495bn in 2022, 14-times the investment in nuclear power plant construction. Wind and solar facilities alone generated 28% more electricity than their nuclear counterparts, accounting for 11.7% of global electricity generation, compared with nuclear’s 9.2%.

In terms of LCOE, the report highlights that nuclear power can be nearly four-times the LCOE of onshore wind at a discount rate of 10%. In the US, unsubsidised solar and wind, with rapidly declining firming costs, have a combined cost of $45–140 per megawatt-hour (MWh) in comparison with new nuclear at a mean $180/MWh.

Uncertain future for global nuclear industry

The global nuclear industry confronts an uncertain future, paired with concerning new developments in the sector.

In the report, one country stood out for going against the current as it continues to dominate the global nuclear market – Russia.

While China leads in the domestic number of reactors under construction with 23 ongoing, Russia dominates the international market with 24 units under construction, including 19 in seven other countries. Russia has also brought on new technology, notably developing the first and only floating nuclear power plant in the world.

However, according to the report, construction delays plague many Russian projects, with 93% of ongoing constructions taking place in Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) or by NWS-controlled companies abroad.

In addition, both China and Russia have been tied to recent revelations about cyberattacks on Sellafield, a nuclear site located on the Cumbrian coast in the UK, by groups with close ties to the two countries. The investigation raised eyebrows about the state of cybersecurity for nuclear sites.

The report also notes that Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) have not seen significant progress in the past year, with no units under construction in the western world. The most advanced project, based in the US and involving NuScale, terminated in November 2023 due to a 75% increase in the cost estimate. Canada, nevertheless, plans to build four SMRs in Ontario, arguing that they will contribute C$15.3bn ($11.25bn) to Canada’s gross domestic product.

In conclusion, the WNISR paints a sobering picture for the global nuclear power industry as it grapples with economic challenges, national policy shifts and the dominance of renewable energy alternatives. As the world transitions towards cleaner and more economically viable energy sources, nuclear power finds itself at a crossroads.

Despite all this, recent announcements at the COP28 summit demonstrate the industry’s efforts to turn things around. While the US, Canada, France, Japan and UK backed the global nuclear supply chain, planning investments to improve uranium enrichment and conversion capacity, US Special Climate Envoy John Kerry launched an international engagement plan to advance nuclear fusion, saying the technology will become vital in the energy transition.

There have also been new developments in international cooperation with the UK and US signing a partnership to develop nuclear fusion technology and the UK and South Korea agreeing to strengthen their cooperation on civil nuclear power including large-scale, small-scale and advanced reactors, decommissioning and waste management, and supply chains.

Even so, government planners insist that long-term risks—both environmental and operational—outweigh the temporary benefits of delaying closures .

In economic terms, the coupling of nuclear withdrawal and potential gas supply disruptions presented stark challenges.

Expert analysis warned that a complete Russian gas cutoff could shrink the German economy by up to 12% in a worst-case scenario and that retaining nuclear even temporarily might provide useful breathing room.

However, these arguments did not prevail against entrenched policy positions and operational obstacles, such as the loss of specialized staff, regulatory barriers, and deferred maintenance on remaining reactors .

In conclusion, Germany’s departure from nuclear power is the result of a unique blend of public anxiety, political will, and environmental advocacy.

The consequences of this strategy—reliance on fossil fuels, heightened energy prices, a tense political debate, and renewed attention to energy security amid geopolitical shocks—have fueled a complex, ongoing national conversation.

While opposition to nuclear energy remains strong among German leaders, a significant portion of the public and industry voices now question whether forgoing nuclear has made the transition to carbon neutrality harder and more precarious.

Germany’s experience continues to be closely watched as a test case for energy transitions worldwide .


The International Space Station (ISS) has experienced several notable air leaks that posed risks to its crew.

On August 30, 2018, a drop in cabin pressure alerted astronauts to a hole in the Soyuz MS-09 spacecraft docked to the station.

This caused international controversy, with some Russian officials suggesting the hole was drilled deliberately.

However, NASA denied any astronaut involvement, and investigators ruled out manufacturing defects.

Prompt action by the crew sealed the breach, stabilizing the station’s air pressure and ensuring crew safety.

A separate, persistent leak emerged in late 2019 in the Russian Zvezda module.

The leak rate increased over the next year, leading astronauts to methodically seal station compartments until the source—a crack in Zvezda—was pinpointed.

Russian cosmonauts, including Pyotr Dubrov and Anton Shkaplerov, played key roles in finding and repairing leaks, using specialized equipment sent up on resupply missions.

While several cracks were found and sealed, pressure drops continued, underlining the technical difficulties of securing an aging space habitat.

By 2021 and 2022, crews and ground teams continued to monitor and address lingering air loss, adapting their repairs as needed.

These ongoing leaks emphasized both the resilience of ISS operations and the growing challenges of maintaining airtightness as the station ages, illustrating the ingenuity and caution required in life aboard an orbiting laboratory.

The International Space Station (ISS) has experienced several notable air leaks that posed risks to its crew.

Title:

Content: NASA has excluded the involvement of its astronauts in the hole in the “Union ”
American astronauts are not involved in the appearance of a hole in the household compartment docked to the ISS “Soyuz MS-09 ” in 2018.
This was stated by the assistant head of NASA for manned flights Katie Leeds, commenting on the publication of TASS, in which, with reference to the source, it is reported about the likely drilling of a hole in the ship by astronaut Serina Augnon-Chancellor.
"NASA crew members carry out their missions professionally and honestly.
I support Serina and her professional behavior, and I don't find this accusation credible, "Leaders said.
On the eve of TASS published an anonymous interview with an unnamed top manager of “Roscosmos ”, in which the Agency interlocutor said that Aunyon-Chancellor, being the only woman in the crew, experienced“ acute psychological crisis ”.
The source of the publication explained that, wanting to speed up its return to Earth in connection with the emergency situation, the American drilled a hole that threatened to depressurize the station.
As one of the confirmations of his version, the Agency interlocutor indicated that NASA astronauts refused to pass the test on the “lie detector ”.
According to the source, the hole was drilled in zero gravity.
The crew discovered an air leak on the International Space Station (ISS) on the night of August 30, 2018, which was caused by a hole in the Soyuz MS-09 spacecraft.
It was located in the household compartment, not in the lander, so it did not threaten the return of the crew to Earth.
General Director of Roscosmos Dmitry Rogozin reported that the commission of the rocket and space Corporation (RSC) Energia ruled out the version of damage to the skin of the Soyuz MS-09 spacecraft as a result of industrial defects.
Newsletters "Vedomosti" - get the main business news by mail
I want to subscribe

On August 30, 2018, a drop in cabin pressure alerted astronauts to a hole in the Soyuz MS-09 spacecraft docked to the station.

This caused international controversy, with some Russian officials suggesting the hole was drilled deliberately.

However, NASA denied any astronaut involvement, and investigators ruled out manufacturing defects.

Prompt action by the crew sealed the breach, stabilizing the station’s air pressure and ensuring crew safety.

Title:

Content: 22: 04, 31 December 2021
The Russian crew found the alleged site of air leakage on the International space station
It is located in the module “Star ”, said in“ Roscosmos ”.
The cosmonauts will begin repair work after the nearest Progress cargo ship will deliver the necessary funds to them, the state corporation said.
Today, during the congratulations of the Russian participants of the expedition to the ISS, the head of Roscosmos, Dmitry Rogozin, spoke about the problems faced by the astronauts.
Air leakage at the station was recorded more than two years ago.
Since then, crew members have found several cracks and reported that they were able to seal them.
However, the pressure on the station continued to fall.
Uploading comments...
The most discussed
Popular for the week
On the air today

A separate, persistent leak emerged in late 2019 in the Russian Zvezda module.

Title:

Content: Russian space station laboratory module appears to spring coolant leak

An apparent exterior coolant leak from a Russian laboratory module at the International Space Station has been reported by the crew. It follows similar leaks that struck a Russian Soyuz crew ferry craft and a Progress cargo ship within the past year.

This latest incident was reported by Mission Control Center at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston to NASA space station crew member Jasmin Moghbeli around 1 p.m. EDT (1700 UTC).

“We’re seeing flakes outside. Need a crew to go to the cupola, look toward the aft side, we think windows five or six, and confirm any visual flakes,” mission control requested.

Moghbeli, the commander of the SpaceX Crew-7 mission and current ISS flight engineer, said she would go check it out herself. She was asked if she could confirm the point of origin, since it was difficult to see that from the ground perspective.

“Yeah, there’s a leak coming from the radiator on the MLM,” Moghbeli said.

The MLM is the Multipurpose Laboratory Module, also called “Nauka.” It’s the newest module of the space station, having launched on a Russian Proton rocket on July 21, 2021.

“We copy and we think we concur. We just confirmed it with video and they’re seeing it here on the ground,” Mission Control replied. “Jaws [a nickname for Moghbeli], can you please close the cupola shutters?”

Less than a minute later, Moghbeli confirmed the shutters were closed. This was presumably to prevent the surface of the windows being contaminated by the leaking coolant. About 20 minutes after that, ISS Commander and European Space Agency (ESA) astronaut Andreas Mogensen confirmed to Mission Control that the gym and lab shutters on the U.S. side of the space station were also closed.

NASA has not yet made an official comment regarding the leak.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

The leak rate increased over the next year, leading astronauts to methodically seal station compartments until the source—a crack in Zvezda—was pinpointed.

Title:

Content: Links for simplified access
ISS crew reports smoke and smell of burnt plastic
In the Russian module “Zvezda ” on the International space station (ISS) last night worked fire alarm, reports RIA“ Novosti ” with reference to the negotiations of the crew with the Earth, which broadcasts NASA.
Around five in the morning Moscow time, cosmonaut Oleg Novitsky told the Mission Control Center about the smoke and smell of burnt plastic.
After that, the devices showed the presence of harmful substances in the area of the medical cabinet in the Zvezda module.
French astronaut Tom Pesquet said that the smell of burnt plastic or electronics also penetrated the American segment of the ISS due to the working ventilation.
The source of the smoke and smell has not yet been identified.
The ISS included a system for removing harmful impurities.
Later, Roscosmos said that the smoke sensor and alarm system worked on the ISS “during automatic recharging of batteries. ”
Currently, all systems of the station are working normally, the department notes.
The Russian service module Zvezda docked to the ISS in July 2000.
Its main frame was built in the 1980s as the core of the Mir-2 space station, which was to replace the Mir station, but then it was decided to use it in the ISS program.
Zvezda allows a crew of three cosmonauts to stay in space, and the module can also dock with the Progress cargo ship, which once every three months delivers the necessary supplies to the station and adjusts its orbit.
In the fall of 2019, an air leak was recorded on the ISS.
A year later, the leakage rate increased fivefold.
Sequential sealing of the station compartments allowed us to establish that the cause of the leak was a crack in the Russian segment of the ISS - Zvezda.
The astronauts sealed it with a sealant, but the air leak continued.
Recently, during the survey of the International Space Station, cosmonauts found non-through cracks on the oldest module - "Dawn".
At the end of July, a meeting of the Presidium of the Scientific and Technical Council of Roscosmos took place, where it was noted that the station is breathing on incense.
The International Space Station will expire in 2024.
Earlier, Vladimir Solovyov, General Designer of the Energia Rocket and Space Corporation, predicted an avalanche of failure of numerous elements at the station after 2025.
This mainly concerns the tightness of the housing and complex computing facilities that have developed their resource, Solovyov noted.
XS
SM
MD
LG

Russian cosmonauts, including Pyotr Dubrov and Anton Shkaplerov, played key roles in finding and repairing leaks, using specialized equipment sent up on resupply missions.

Title:

Content: Cosmonauts' spacewalk canceled at space station due to leak

NASA and Russia's space agency canceled a spacewalk by two Russian cosmonauts just as they were preparing to exit the International Space Station late Wednesday because of an apparent coolant leak from an attached space capsule.

NASA's Johnson Space Center said Sergey Prokopyev and Dmitri Petelin were not in danger, nor were other astronauts on the space station. The cosmonauts had donned spacesuits and depressurized an airlock when the leak appeared on a live video feed.

It was the second time the Russian cosmonauts have had to cancel the spacewalk. As in the first attempt on Nov. 25, the pair had planned to move a radiator from one module attached to the space station to another. In that first attempt, a problem arose with coolant pumps on the cosmonauts' Russian-built Orlan spacesuits.

In Wednesday's incident, ground specialists saw a stream of fluid and particles on a live video feed from space, along with a pressure drop on instruments, emanating from the Soyuz MS-22 capsule that had carried Prokopyev and Petelin, along with NASA astronaut Frank Rubio, to the International Space Station in September. The leak was continuing from the Soyuz capsule, docked to one of the space station's modules, hours after its discovery.

The cosmonauts restored pressure to the airlock, removed their spacesuits and re-entered the space station, NASA reported.

Russia's space agency and NASA planned to investigate the Soyuz leak to determine how the capsule might have been affected. It wasn't immediately clear what effect the leak would have on the crew's mission.

Four other astronauts and one other cosmonaut are on board the space station.

While several cracks were found and sealed, pressure drops continued, underlining the technical difficulties of securing an aging space habitat.

By 2021 and 2022, crews and ground teams continued to monitor and address lingering air loss, adapting their repairs as needed.

These ongoing leaks emphasized both the resilience of ISS operations and the growing challenges of maintaining airtightness as the station ages, illustrating the ingenuity and caution required in life aboard an orbiting laboratory.