Mid-May marked a huge milestone in Europe’s history but somehow with the constant noise coming from the other side of the Atlantic, we didn’t make a big thing out of it. Germany, after 14 years, decided to back down on its radical stance against nuclear energy. Seriously, that took some guts from German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. After all, as recently as September 2023, we heard a strong voice telling us that the nuclear path was going to stay a no-go for Germany, even as it was accused of having outsourced its defence to the US, its energy sources to Russia and its production to China.1
So what took the Germans so long? Was it really the trauma imposed on the German people by the disaster of far-away Fukushima? Makes little sense. Also, what evidence did Germany hold onto to justify its strong opposition to nuclear energy? In April 2024, evidence was presented in an investigative report published in German magazine Cicero showing that officials within the Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action as well as the Environment Ministry, both led at the time by Green Party ministers, manipulated internal documents to support the nuclear phase-out. They allegedly also deliberately suppressed expert analyses that contradicted their stance.
As we all know, the quest for power is not simple, whether political or energetic. We won’t get into a history lesson today, but clearly Germany isn’t an inconspicuous protagonist when it comes to global geopolitics. So in short, what is behind the whole nuclear-power hullabaloo?
First, there is the relationship between the Germans and the Russians. Clearly, the denuclearisation of German’s power production has benefitted the relationship between the two countries, especially in one direction, since it made Germans dependent on Russian gas. This alliance was especially beneficial for some political figures like former chancellor Gerhard Schröder, as extensively outlined in The Moscow connection subtitled the Schröder network and Germany’s way into dependency a somewhat controversial book by Reinhard Bingener and Markus Wehner (2023) which shed light on the intricate ties between the two countries.
Then, there are the French and the arch-rivalry between the two countries. France has made a clear and early bet on atomic power and now proudly boasts a 56-strong fleet of reactors. Germans, meanwhile, having faced significant opinion backlash against the building of nuclear power plants already since the 1970s, has always been less enthusiastic about relying on atomic technology for energy generation. After the phase-out decision took place in 2011 under Angela Merkel, Germany has played a strong role in weighing against the reliance on nuclear power to “green” the European electricity supply. That’s until now. Being able to rely on the French “nuclear shield” (as in the bomb) as a deterrent against future Russian aggression seems to have become more important than holding on to old quasi-ideological decisions. Now finally, Europe can unify its definitions and efforts about green energy and Germany can hope to credibly start to phase out coal-powered electricity generation which it has held onto for so long.
This is an important move also for the Nordics and the various green-business ideas being explored in the region at the moment. Indeed, Nordic green electricity (Northern Swedish hydropower, for instance) has proved very attractive for power-hungry sustainable businesses like green steel or data centres (and car-battery manufacturing until Northvolt’s tragic death). As we all can understand, electricity in a country like Sweden is distributed where it is needed which means that, if hydropower is being consumed by heavy industry in the North, the south will have to import power from other countries. At this time, the option is most often coal-fired German power. In such a situation, so-called green steel becomes a bit of a hypocrisy, in addition to not being as cost-efficient as its brown equivalent. While the solution proposed by optimistic ecologists is to increase renewable projects, they all come with downsides, not the least their inherent intermittency, which is not optimal for heavy industry. Other issues include biodiversity and natural habitat destruction and even cultural opposition. Indeed, Sami tribes for example, have recently been seen fighting the construction of wind power on terrain traditionally used to herd reindeers.
With cautious optimism, we can also observe that China seems to be slowing down its expansion of coal-fired power plants. While coal still represents 58% of electricity generation there, both renewable and nuclear energy generation capacity are growing faster. As a potential consequence of the Trump tariff war Chinese exports may slow down, which would ultimately mean less energetic demand altogether. It is worth noticing the price of thermal coal which has been stuck at a low level for a while now and experts predict that they could even fall lower.
Even if for the next four years, the US will do all it can to backtrack on any decrease in GHG emissions, we might cynically hope that the economic downturn brought about by their own tariffs will also have a negative effect on power consumption. That said, it is possible that technological advances, particularly in the area of artificial intelligence will more than compensate for any economy-related slowdown in energetic demand.
There you have it. Power generation will be the name of the game for the next decade and beyond. In this game, it is likely that no move will be spared. At least, we can be happy that Europe has finally found a common ground and is working to repair its barriers to compete again at the international level.
1You may want to catch up on an earlier Snap column where you can learn some useful German vocabulary like Zeitenwende, Zeitenbruch and Veränderungsangsthasen.↩
