Germany’s Nuclear U-Turn Causes Political Fallout
The Energy Poster Child of what Not to do.
Germany, once a global poster child for renewable energy and the anti-nuclear movement, is grappling with a deepening energy crisis that has exposed cracks in its ambitious Energiewende policy. The nation’s recent shift toward reconsidering nuclear power—after years of dogmatic opposition—has ignited a fierce political firestorm, dividing leadership and leaving the Net Zero and renewable energy advocates scrambling to defend their stance. As manufacturing industries falter under unreliable energy supplies, the fallout from Germany’s nuclear phase-out is becoming impossible to ignore.
I am reaching out to
to see about a joint paper or discussion of what Germany could do. Doug has a unique view on nuclear energy. He has started the organization “Oil and Gas Executives for Nuclear Energy.” Secretary Chris Wright was the first executive to sign the declaration in support when Chris was the CEO of Liberty Energy.
Doug also visited Germany before the closure of the last two nuclear power plants, and I find it odd that they made large purchases of Uranium in late 2024 from Russia, even though their plants were already closed. Smart, or was it foreshadowing that they were realizing they needed those plants back online?
As a side note, I also signed the Declaration in support as an owner of an oil and gas company. It is about delivering the lowest cost kWh to everyone on the planet, with the least environmental impact.
The Anti-Nuclear Legacy and Energiewende’s Promises
Germany’s rejection of nuclear energy is deeply rooted in post-war socio-political dynamics, amplified by the 2011 Fukushima disaster. Public distrust of technocracy, fears of nuclear proliferation, and environmental concerns fueled a powerful anti-nuclear movement, culminating in Chancellor Angela Merkel’s 2011 decision to phase out all nuclear reactors by 2023. The last three plants—Emsland, Isar-2, and Neckarwestheim-2—went offline in April 2023, marking the end of Germany’s six-decade nuclear era.
The Energiewende, Germany’s flagship energy transition policy, aimed to replace nuclear and fossil fuels with wind and solar, targeting a CO2 emissions-free economy by 2050. By 2022, renewables had slashed carbon emissions by 25% compared to 2002, a commendable feat. However, the phase-out of nuclear—a reliable, carbon-free energy source supplying 6% of electricity in its final years—created a dangerous gap that wind and solar have struggled to fill.
Net Zero advocates and renewable energy purists, particularly within the Green Party and Social Democrats (SPD), championed this shift, arguing that solar and wind were sufficient to meet Germany’s energy needs. They dismissed nuclear energy as environmentally inferior, citing safety risks and concerns about waste. Yet, the intermittency of renewables and the slow pace of grid infrastructure development have left Germany vulnerable, especially as its manufacturing-heavy economy demands stable, high-volume power.
The Energy Crisis: Renewables Fall Short
Germany’s energy crisis was exacerbated by its reliance on Russian natural gas, which supplied 50% of its needs before Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Sanctions and disrupted supplies forced Germany to resurrect coal plants and burn lignite, the dirtiest fossil fuel, undermining its climate goals. In 2023, coal accounted for 30% of electricity production, with a carbon intensity of 476 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour recorded the day after the nuclear shutdown.
Manufacturing giants like BASF and Volkswagen, pillars of Germany’s economy, have sounded alarms over soaring energy costs and unreliable supplies. Power prices surged past 500 euros per megawatt-hour in 2022, and the lack of baseload power has threatened industrial output. Wind and solar, despite significant expansion, cannot provide the consistent energy needed for energy-intensive industries. A 2024 study in the International Journal of Sustainable Energy revealed that Germany’s nuclear phase-out led to higher energy costs and negligible carbon reductions, as renewables failed to replace nuclear’s steady output.
Professor Jan Emblemsvåg’s analysis underscored the missed opportunity: redirecting Energiewende’s funds to new nuclear capacity could have cut emissions by an additional 73% and saved 330 billion euros. The reality is stark—Germany’s bet on renewables alone has backfired, leaving it dependent on coal and imported gas while industries face competitive disadvantages.
The Nuclear U-Turn: A Political Powder Keg
The mounting crisis has forced a dramatic rethink. In 2025, Germany’s leadership signaled a shift, with Economy Minister Katherina Reiche engaging pro-nuclear EU states and Chancellor Friedrich Merz, a Christian Democrat (CDU), advocating for nuclear’s revival, including small modular reactors (SMRs). Germany also dropped its opposition to labeling nuclear as green in EU policy, a move hailed as a “sea-change” by officials.
This U-turn has sparked intense political fallout. Environment Minister Carsten Schneider and the Greens remain staunchly anti-nuclear, insisting on sticking to the phase-out. The Greens, whose identity is tied to the Energiewende, view the return of nuclear power as a betrayal of their core principles. Meanwhile, Merz’s CDU and parts of the SPD see nuclear as essential for energy security and climate goals, especially as public opinion shifts—over 80% of Germans favored extending reactor lifespans in 2023.
The debate has fractured the governing coalition. Reiche’s attendance at a pro-nuclear EU meeting in 2025 drew sharp rebukes from Schneider, highlighting the rift. Critics argue that the Greens’ ideological rigidity risks further economic damage, while pro-nuclear advocates, emboldened by global trends like the World Bank’s reversal on nuclear funding bans, push for pragmatism.
The Global Context: Nuclear Renaissance
Germany’s nuclear reckoning mirrors a broader global shift. Italy and Denmark are overturning decades-long nuclear bans, Spain is reconsidering plant phase-outs, and SMRs are gaining traction as a flexible, cost-effective solution. Nuclear’s zero-carbon reliability is increasingly seen as critical for balancing energy security and climate goals, with 60 reactors under construction worldwide and 110 in planning.
Yet, Germany’s anti-nuclear stance has left it lagging. Restarting old reactors is unlikely due to technical and political barriers, but Merz’s push for SMRs and civilian nuclear research signals a modernized approach. This pivot could align Germany with allies like France, which relies heavily on nuclear, but it risks alienating the Green base and stalling EU energy policy consensus.
The Path Forward: A Reckoning for Net Zero Ideals
Germany’s nuclear U-turn is a cautionary tale for Net Zero advocates who prioritize ideology over practicality. The renewable energy dream, while noble, has collided with the reality of industrial energy demands and geopolitical shocks. Wind and solar remain vital, but without nuclear’s baseload power, Germany risks further coal reliance and economic decline.
The political fallout will shape Germany’s energy future. Merz’s coalition must navigate internal divisions and public skepticism while addressing the economic toll of past decisions. For the Greens, clinging to anti-nuclear dogma may erode credibility as voters prioritize affordable, reliable energy.
As one X post starkly put it: “The energy transition has failed. Germany replaced stable, CO2-free nuclear with unreliable, expensive wind and solar, losing over 1,000 billion euros.”Germany stands at a crossroads. Embracing nuclear could restore energy security and bolster its climate leadership, but it requires confronting decades of entrenched ideology.
The world is watching as Germany grapples with the consequences of its nuclear gamble—and the price of ignoring reality.
Sources:
OilPrice.com, “Germany’s Nuclear U-Turn Divides Leadership”
Energy News Beat, “Germany is Rethinking Everything Nuclear”
Additional references from OilPrice.com and related web sources
For such smart people, who brought us so much science and industry, how could Germany be so stupid? They implemented ironclad dogma and were blind to the data. Perhaps by serving as a horrible example, they will help other countries avoid following their dogmatic road to disaster.
As usual, the anti-human/marxist greens ignore reality and the laws of physics, thermodynamics, and economics, in their naive, childlike goal of “net zero” in an effort to return the earth to what it was before mankind started “interfering” with and destroying “Mother Nature.”
Germany’s problem is that they gave them the political power and both sides bought into it, unlike America where, other than some annoyingly provincial senators (Grassley, Ernst, etc), the GOP never bought into the green agenda, this having the ability to kill it (for now), under Trump.