The Decline of German Nuclear Power

By Seoyun Nam

On 25th of October, two cooling towers at the Gundremmingen nuclear plant in Germany were demolished in a controlled operation.

Following the Fukushima accident, Germany confirmed its policy to completely wind down nuclear power generation and culminated its nuclear era. The core drivers of the phase-out were safety concerns and the unresolved issue of high-level radioactive waste disposal. Today, the focus has shifted to ensuring safe waste management and advancing the transition to alternative energy sources.

After June 30,2011 when the Bundestag voted to phase out nuclear energy, Germany resumed its search for a final repository for high-level radioactive waste. On April 15, 2023, the last three operating nuclear power plants in Germany (Isar 2, Emsland, and Neckarwestheim 2) ceased operations and entered decommission. This officially completed nuclear phase-out.

The demolition of the two towers was part of the post-deactivation process, clearing remaining structures from the site.

Even after decommissioning, Germany continues to grapple with complex social and technical obstacles in securing a safe, long-term disposal site for radioactive waste, which is a process expected to take decades. Although limited extensions of nuclear operations were temporarily allowed amid recent energy security concerns, these were short-term responses, not a shift in policy. The broader phase-out trajectory remains firmly in place.

Emerging technologies such as Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and Partitioning & Transmutation (P&T) have been proposed as future solutions, but they remain largely theoretical in Germany’s context. These options are constrained by high development costs, unresolved safety and scalability issues, and a lack of regulatory and public consensus. In this landscape, ensuring energy safety and sustainability depends not only on innovation but also on durable public trust and transparent governance.

Germany’s renewable energy transition(a.k.a Energiewende) has become both a source of pride and controversy. Supporters point to the rapid growth of solar and wind infrastructure, and a nationwide commitment to sustainability. The government insists that a decentralized grid, powered by renewables, will secure energy independence and environmental integrity.

Critics, however, remain unconvinced. The sudden closure of nuclear plants has increased short-term dependence on coal and imported natural gas. The 2022 energy crisis, triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, exposed how vulnerable Germany could become when geopolitical shocks disrupt fuel supplies. As environmental analyst Claudia Kemfert of the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin) has noted, the nuclear phase-out has in some cases led to higher emissions and energy prices, counter to its intended goals

For other nations, whether a phase-out is feasible depends on each country’s energy mix, political consensus, and technological readiness. France’s stable reliance on nuclear energy, for instance, contrasts sharply with Germany’s more ideological approach.

The debate over nuclear power has always been a question of which risk one prefers.

Continuing with nuclear means accepting the small but catastrophic potential of accidents like Chernobyl or Fukushima. It also means facing up to the lingering unsolved problem of radioactive waste, which remains toxic for thousands of years, and the staggering costs of plant construction and decommissioning.

Yet abandoning nuclear comes entirely with its own set of dangers: losing a dependable, low-carbon power source could stall progress toward net-zero goals. As renewables fluctuate and storage technology lags behind, energy grids may face instability.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) maintains that nuclear energy can play a stabilizing role in the global clean-energy transition, provided costs and safety measures are well-managed. “Without nuclear, achieving deep decarbonization will be harder,” one IEA report states.

German environmental agencies disagree. They view the phase-out as a moral and ecological necessity, framing it as a step toward a more democratic, community-driven energy model.

Energy economists, however, claim that the transition could backfire unless renewables and grid storage expand rapidly. “If Germany wants to lead the post-nuclear era,” one analyst told Der Spiegel, “it must prove that a modern industrial economy can thrive on renewables alone.”

The International Energy Agency (IEA) argues that nuclear energy can serve as a stabilizing force in the global energy transition, particularly as a low-carbon baseload source. “Without nuclear, achieving deep decarbonization will be harder,” one IEA report states. Some energy analysts echo this view, emphasizing that nuclear offers a reliable backup to fluctuating renewables. In contrast, German environmental agencies frame the phase-out as both a moral and ecological imperative. For them it is an essential move toward a decentralized and democratic energy system.

Germany’s nuclear phase-out marks a significant chapter in global energy policy. While the end of nuclear power generation is now formalized, the legacy of atomic energy remains active and unresolved. There are still a lingering problems to deal with, from radioactive waste to geopolitical energy dependencies.

As other countries continue to weigh their own paths between nuclear expansion, renewable investment, and energy independence, Germany's case offers both a precedent and a provocation. It demonstrates the depth of political, economic, and societal commitment required to pursue a full-scale nuclear exit, according to Germany’s Federal Ministry for the Environment (BMUV), which has described the phase-out as a “broadly supported, irreversible decision” rooted in public consensus and long-term safety concerns.

Whether nuclear energy is enclosed as a liability or a necessity will continue to depend on progress on technologies, public trust, and the lessons each nation chooses to draw from others.