ERR News conducted an interview with the German Ambassador to Estonia, H.E. Annette Klein, on the reasoning behind the German decision.
Ambassador Klein, I’ve talked to quite a few people now. People from Estonia, from Finland and from Russia. And one topic seems to really bother them: as soon as they find out I’m German, they come up with the question, “Why the hell is Germany giving up nuclear power?” Now I ask you this question: “Why the hell is Germany doing this ?”
We cannot control it, it is extremely expensive and there are alternative energy sources that are more affordable and less dangerous. I became politically aware during my school years in Bendorf, near Koblenz, and in the Koblenz-Neuwied basin area, due to the construction of a nuclear power plant in nearby Mülheim-Kerlich.
As a young man, I joined demonstrations against the nuclear power plant, not mainly because of the trend toward phasing out nuclear power, but mainly because it was built in a tectonically weak spot.
This area of Rhineland-Palatinate regularly experiences earthquakes up to 4.5 on the Richter scale. In addition, the plant is located near the Rhine River, which is planned to be used for cooling. People were concerned that the designers had not taken these earthquakes into account.
This problem continued throughout my schooling. Although the plant was eventually built, it was brought online only briefly, for testing purposes, and was never officially operational, as a court later ruled that it was irresponsible to operate a nuclear power plant in this area. We opposed the plant because we couldn’t monitor it, it was too expensive, and we could use other sources of energy that were cheaper and less dangerous.
OK, but that outlines planning errors for a single power plant and doesn’t really explain why Germany is completely giving up nuclear power as such.
Yes, however, that’s exactly why I got interested and delved into the topic.
The current discourse in Germany regarding nuclear power, whether it is about continuing to operate existing plants or building new ones, only arises because energy security has become an increasingly serious issue in the last few months.
However, it usually takes at least seven years to build a nuclear power plant, and historically it has taken even longer to build. It is critical to consider whether alternative sources can provide the same amount of energy in a comparable amount of time, if not sooner.
In addition, the operation of a nuclear power plant requires the state to create specialized bodies. Although I am not an expert on the matter, I recall that Germany has at least two agencies responsible for this matter: the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz) and the Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management (Bundesamt für die Sicherheit der nucleare Entsorgung ).
In addition, there are likely to be numerous ministerial officials charged with dealing with nuclear energy matters. These provisions are not unique to Germany and require significant resources, both in terms of funding and personnel.
And once construction is complete, we need to discuss safety. The situation in Zaporizhia shows quite clearly how dangerous it is when the largest nuclear power plant in Europe is located on the front line between Russia and Ukraine. It is impossible to build a nuclear power plant that is completely indestructible, and even if it were possible, the cost would likely be astronomical. Such scenarios should be considered: What if a plane crashes in the factory? It is impossible to predict and control every possible scenario.
While running a nuclear power plant, you will have to regularly process fuel rods and manage nuclear waste, which requires the expertise of only a few individuals.
Ultimately, a proper repository is needed to handle all nuclear waste. Germany has been looking for such a repository for decades, but without success. As far as I know, Finland is the only country with such a repository and I have not heard of them offering to process nuclear waste from other countries.
Germany banned its export anyway.
Yes, but that could potentially change. Although I don’t have all the details, I suspect that this particular legislation was created because there was no country with a secure nuclear waste storage facility and there were numerous cases of exported waste ending up in questionable places.
Also, just to use a hypothetical example, it would be counterproductive to avoid dumping toxic waste in the North Sea for environmental reasons if other countries to which we could potentially export it would simply dump it elsewhere.
But nuclear power plants can also create significant operational problems, as we can currently see in France. Normally, Germany gets a significant portion of its nuclear power from France, but this is not the case at the moment due to the serious problems facing France. In particular, due to drought, cooling systems do not function properly, resulting in many nuclear power plants not operating at full capacity.
This means that although nuclear power has a low carbon footprint in operation, it is relatively expensive and carries a host of risks that are susceptible to both human error by operators and malicious actions by third parties. In short, we cannot exercise complete control over it.
After the operation comes the deconstruction phase. Germany has estimated that it could take up to six decades to completely dismantle each nuclear power plant. Because of these factors, Germany decided that the required effort was not justified by the result and therefore chose alternative sources of energy.
It is worth noting that the share of nuclear energy ended up being only 3 percent of Germany’s energy mix, and recent discussions of this matter have been exaggerated.
But that 3 percent only counts for the last three nuclear power plants operating until April 2023.
Yes, and these three reactors had already given their all. They were actually supposed to be shut down in 2019 for repairs, a process that would have taken several months and rendered them inoperable during that time.
In addition, this process would require new fuel rods, which would come mostly from Russia. However, Germany did not want to rely on Russia for their supplies, and finding a new supplier would take too much time. Reworking the bars would require an equally heavy effort.
But only if you look at these specific plants. Germany decided to abandon nuclear power more than a decade ago.
Yes, I believe that nuclear power should not be pursued because of the problems I mentioned above. Instead, we have the ability to secure sufficient energy supplies through renewable sources such as wind, solar, geothermal and hydropower.
However, our approval processes need to be expedited. We give people a lot of say in these matters, which I strongly support. Estonia is considering the introduction of nuclear power. Under certain conditions, this may lead to people exercising their right to protest.
Therefore, taking these factors into account, I see no reason to continue with nuclear power. And it’s a 100 percent economical approach. I don’t need an ideology for that. It is worth noting that this is a decision made by Germany and that other countries such as France and Finland have chosen to rely on nuclear power.
You just said you don’t need an ideology. But the public debate in Germany was very ideological on this issue. And the final decision to go nuclear was an immediate response to the disaster in Fukushima, Japan, in 2011. Some people joke about the “German scare”.
Well, in my opinion, if you anticipate a threat, you should take action. Fukushima was a catalyst rather than a direct cause of the problem. Nuclear energy did not convince me and there were alternative paths we could have taken even sooner.
However, our lengthy approval processes slowed progress and in my opinion took too long. But now we are making strides. Although I have never personally lived less than 50 meters from a windmill, if given the choice between living near a wind farm or a nuclear power plant, I would undoubtedly choose the former.
I recently visited Saaremaa with its old windmills and wondered if people in the past also complained about the impact on the landscape. Personally, I find old windmills quite beautiful, but that’s just my opinion. Fortunately, my personal opinion and convictions on this matter coincide with those of the German government.
But you are right: the conflict was not particularly rational in some respects. In the late 1970s, we spent our free time attending demonstrations, but the subject was not covered in school, neither in physics nor in social studies. That would be helpful.
The Finns seem to consider themselves capable of dealing with these problems. Estonians are also considering building a nuclear power plant. Do they have better engineers or are they just naive?
First, Estonia created a commission that will look at the different scenarios. It remains to be seen what their final opinion will be. Perhaps they will also decide to rely more on renewable energies.
And secondly, as I said before, each country has to decide for itself what is the best way for its energy supply.
Estonians should take into account that nuclear energy requires huge efforts and huge costs. If you have several nuclear power plants, you can use synergistic effects, for example in the administrative part. But if you create several additional bodies to deal with just one nuclear facility, the actual effort is even greater.
However, I’m sure they have the technical capabilities to build and operate this thing. The only question is whether it pays off. But that’s none of my business.
First, Estonia created a commission to evaluate different scenarios. It remains to be seen what their final recommendation will be, as they may opt for greater reliance on renewables.
Second, as mentioned above, each country must determine for itself the optimal approach to its energy supply. Estonians must take into account the considerable efforts and costs required for nuclear power.
Although multiple nuclear power plants can generate interaction, such as in administration, creating multiple regulatory bodies for a single facility would only increase the effort required.
However, I am convinced that Estonia has the technical capabilities to build and operate such a facility.
Ultimately, the decision as to whether it is financially viable is not mine.
Some people fear that Germany has suddenly become the weak spot in the European energy grid.
I have to rely on the German authorities on this, but as far as I know they don’t see it as a problem. However, it is important to manage the grid and distribute energy carefully, something that is also done at the European level. I do not believe that Europe is jeopardizing its energy supply.
Editor’s note: The above interview was conducted in German and translated into English.
Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!