fact finder
Status: 07/29/2022 5:56 p.m
The debate about the continued operation of the remaining German nuclear power plants is growing in intensity. There are even voices calling for nuclear energy to be used again after the service life has been extended. How useful is that?
The three remaining nuclear power plants Isar 2, Emsland and Neckarwestheim 2 should actually be shut down by the end of the year at the latest. They contributed to net electricity production according to the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems 18.53 terawatt hours (TWh) or 6.4 percent in the current year so far.
In contrast, 89.32 TWh or 30.9 percent of the electricity was generated this year with lignite and hard coal. The gas share was therefore 29.35 TWh or 10.1 percent. Renewable energies contribute a total of 149.15 TWh or 51.5 percent to the electricity mix, divided into wind (75.34 TWh, 26.1 percent), solar (38.31 TWh, 13.2 percent), biomass (23, 14 TWh, 8 percent) and other sustainable energy sources.
The nuclear power plant operators EnBW (Neckarwestheim 2), RWE (Emsland) and the Eon subsidiary PreussenElektra (Isar 2) have already rejected the extension of the term. In the event of a change in the law, limited continued operation appears possible. EnBW referred to that ARD Capital Studio on the exit, RWE called the “hurdles for a meaningful extended operation high”. However, PreussenElektra wrote that “continued operation of Isar 2 would be possible under certain conditions”.
“Stretch operation” as a solution for the winter
During an examination in the spring, the Federal Ministries for the Environment and Economics came to the “clear result“that continued operation of the nuclear power plants could only make a “very limited contribution to the energy supply”. This is not only faced with “a number of practical problems, but also constitutional difficulties and aspects of safety for people and the environment”.
Since new fuel rods could presumably no longer be procured before winter, the three nuclear power plants would have to reduce their power generation in order to be able to use the existing fuel rods longer. This so-called “extended operation” is now to be checked again, in the event that a current “stress test” of the energy supply comes to the conclusion that it cannot be secured in winter.
Some energy experts are currently in favor of a limited extension of the service life: Walter Tromm from the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) emphasizes that in order to compensate for the approximately 33 terawatt hours that the remaining nuclear power plants generate each year with gas, you have to use as much of it Burning power generation means that “about three million single-family homes can be heated a year” with it. “Of course, you can also compensate for this with coal-fired power plants, but the coal has to be procured here too, in addition to the CO2 problem,” says Tromm.
The specialist for the dismantling of nuclear power plants Sascha Gentes, who also works at KIT, says: “From my point of view, all objective arguments currently speak in favor of a temporary extension of the service life. We have to design our energy production from renewable sources, no question, but in the current situation, with which nobody would have expected to shut down three nuclear power plants that meet all safety standards without an emergency is irresponsible.”
“Stuttgart Declaration” wants re-entry
For some scientists, however, this limited extension does not go far enough: They emerged earlier this week with a statement calling for a return to nuclear energy. The group around the Stuttgart physicist André Thess sees “competitiveness and prosperity” in Germany endangered by the energy transition. “Holding on to Germany’s nuclear phase-out exacerbates these dangers and – together with ongoing coal-fired power generation – slows down international climate protection,” the statement said.
Michael Sterner, Professor of Energy Storage and Energy Systems at the OTH Regensburg, contradicts this “Stuttgart Declaration” in a Twitter thread: Thousands of “wind and solar systems” are “keeping the price of electricity low” and “do a large part in ensuring security of supply and independence “. The consequential costs of nuclear power are ignored, if you include them and other risks, “nuclear power remains the most expensive electricity of all time”.
In the “Spiegel” he added: “The risk of a nuclear meltdown always exists, even these scientists do not have it in their hands. To rely on nuclear power without considering the risks and the unsolved problem of the repository is irresponsible towards future generations.” However, Sterner is also in favor of the stretching operation should the stress test come to the conclusion that this is necessary for energy security in winter.
Controversial TÜV certificate
TÜV Managing Director Joachim Bühler also recently brought into play a rapid restart of the three nuclear power plants that were shut down at the end of 2021: Brokdorf (Schleswig-Holstein), Grohnde (Lower Saxony) and Gundremmingen C (Bavaria). He considers this primarily a question of political will: Technically, the nuclear power plants are in a condition that makes it possible to start them up again.
Greenpeace, on the other hand, accuses the TÜV in its own specially commissioned legal opinion of having drawn up a “favorable opinion” on behalf of the Bavarian Ministry of the Environment. TÜV Süd certifies what the client wants. “Regardless of the condition and without checking the nuclear power plant, the result is already clear for the TÜV,” says Heinz Smital, nuclear physicist and Greenpeace nuclear expert.
European neighbors rely on nuclear power
If you look at other European countries, the attitude to nuclear energy is often different: In view of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Belgium has already postponed the phase-out of nuclear energy by ten years – to 2035. And this despite the fact that the safety of the older nuclear power plants there has always been sparked discussion again. However, the two reactors that are to be extended are of a newer type.
France is even banking on the expansion of nuclear power: President Emanuel Macron only announced on February 15, 2022 that up to 14 new nuclear reactors would be built. In fact, however, France has been trying to build and commission a single new reactor (Flammanville3) since 2007 – so far in vain. Instead of the planned construction time of five years and costs of 3.3 billion euros, the planned commissioning is currently scheduled for the end of 2023 and the costs have exploded to 12.7 billion euros.
It was not until July 2022 that the French government announced that it would completely nationalize the heavily indebted nuclear power company EDF. Up to 60 billion euros in debt could end up with French taxpayers. In addition, only 30 of the 59 reactors are currently connected to the grid: some of this is regular maintenance work, which also had to be postponed due to the corona lockdowns. However, there is an unsolved corrosion problem on at least twelve reactors – on a newer series of all things.
In addition, some blocks had to be shut down due to the heat wave because the water in the rivers from which cooling water is taken and returned would otherwise reach temperatures that would result in the massive death of flora and fauna. In view of the long-term rise in temperatures, critics see another problem with nuclear power in terms of its climate change security.
Northern Finland is also relying on nuclear power: the new Olkiluoto 3 nuclear reactor there is scheduled to go online later this year after a test run. Here, too, the construction time was delayed to a total of 17 years, and here too the costs rose from three to currently at least nine billion. The construction of another reactor was therefore abandoned. In Finland, where there is already a nuclear repository, nuclear power is an undisputed part of climate policy to save CO2, even among the co-governing Greens.