US ESTABLISHMENT PRO NUKE

Opinion: Germany is closing its last nuclear plants. What a mistake.

The Grohnde Nuclear Power Plant is one of three facilities being decommissioned by Germany


By Editorial Board

A little more than 10 years ago, the world held its breath as Japanese authorities struggled to contain an accident that occurred at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station following a major earthquake. At the time, many observers wondered whether nuclear power, with its radioactive waste and meltdown risk, was worth continuing to use. In retrospect, it was this very backlash — against a virtually carbon-free energy technology that the world needs to slash greenhouse emissions — that turned out to be among the Fukushima saga’s most substantial negative consequences.

An energy dilemma on the other side of the world shows why. Germany is shutting three more nuclear power plants — nearly half of the nuclear capacity it has left — even as energy prices soar and the country struggles to cut its carbon dioxide emissions. The nation’s remaining reactors will close down by the end of 2022. This is the result of a pledge to rapidly phase out nuclear power that Germany’s government made hastily in the wake of the Fukushima accident. At the time, the decision pleased longtime anti-nuclear activists, advocates for renewables and frightened citizens. But clearer heads warned that then-Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision was a mistake that would force Europe’s largest economy to rely on fossil fuels such as lignite, an especially dirty form of coal.

Which is precisely what happened. Though Germany has invested heavily in renewables, it nevertheless has had to burn massive amounts of coal since 2011 to keep its economy running. Absent nuclear, Germany also depends more on Russian natural gas, a deep geopolitical vulnerability that gives leverage to Russia’s authoritarian government.

True, the German government has committed to phasing out coal — but not until 2038. Even on this long time frame, eliminating coal without help from nuclear power plants will be perilous for Europe’s largest economy. Analysts warn that Germany’s supply margin — how much electrical generation capacity the country has in reserve — could plummet in the next couple of years, risking blackouts in times of grid stress.

Next door, French President Emmanuel Macron is moving in the opposite direction, announcing plans for new nuclear reactors. France relies more on nuclear power than any other nation, a major reason the country has about half the per capita greenhouse emissions Germany does. Mr. Macron rightly sees expanding the nation’s nuclear capacity as a better alternative than attempting to rely on renewables alone. Solar and wind power will be essential pieces of a cleaner energy mix, but the grid will still require reliable, always-on sources of electricity to back up intermittent renewables. Better it be nuclear than coal, oil or gas.

Nuclear energy frightens many people. But the deadly chemicals that coal plants spew into the air should scare them more. So should the existential threat of climate change. At the least, countries with legacy nuclear power plants — the United States has many — should aim to keep them online for as long as possible rather than repeat Germany’s mistake.