Enlarge image
Friedrich Merz (CDU) and Markus Söder (CSU) visiting the Isar 2 nuclear power plant. They then spoke out in favor of continued operation.
Photo: Bavarian State Chancellery / dpa
Nuclear power is once again making the headlines - phase-out, stretching operation or lifetime extension?
Currently, the debate is fueled by the war-related crisis and gas shortages.
The idea of cold showers, unheated living spaces and exorbitant electricity bills has an existential and threatening effect on many people.
However, fear is rarely a good advisor.
It leads to increasingly populist tendencies in the debate as well as to simplifications and shortenings.
The view is narrowed to supposedly climate-neutral nuclear power plants, which in times of war are supposed to get us through the next winter.
It is not without reason, however, that this form of energy production has led to violent conflicts for decades.
In addition, the Russian war of aggression in Ukraine shows once again what dangers emanate from nuclear power plants, especially in times of war.
Nevertheless, pro-nuclear actors see their chance to make nuclear power socially acceptable again in Germany beyond the gateway of possible stretching.
Lifetime extensions including the procurement of new fuel elements or even new nuclear power plants are brought into play.
The diverse arguments against nuclear power are suppressed in the debate:
First
Nuclear power is one of the most polluting energy sources in human history, although the opposite is often claimed.
This is only possible by not considering the entire energy chain that begins with uranium mining.
Resource colonialism in Brazilian, Kazakh or Namibian opencast mining has also led to the expulsion of indigenous peoples, slash and burn, groundwater contamination, the loss of biodiversity or the uplift of mine water, including heavy metal contamination.
Large quantities of diesel are not only used in the operation of the opencast mine, the transport of the nuclear material around the world and the production of the fuel elements are also energy-intensive.
Secondly
, the amount of nuclear waste that has to be stored in a repository continues to increase, although to date - worldwide (!) - not a single repository has been put into operation.
It was not without reason that the statutory obligation to provide evidence of a repository applied in Germany when a nuclear power plant was commissioned.
This function was filled by the Gorleben exploration mine.
However, Gorleben left the site search at the end of 2020 after more than four decades of resistance.
This leads to the question on what basis the continued operation of nuclear power plants is actually justified with regard to an immense disposal problem.
In the current debate, the focus is shifting to short-term solutions that are at odds with the long-term challenges.
Third
we are passing on a high risk to all generations that will come after us.
In Germany, the legislator has stipulated that the highly radioactive waste should be stored as safely as possible for a period of one million years, and the waste should be able to be recovered for 500 years.
What dangers will arise for humans and their natural environment in what is, according to human judgement, an unforeseeable period of time cannot be estimated at present.
Even the loads caused by the construction and storage of the repository will be considerable.
The negative consequences of generating energy through nuclear power are not only felt today in the Global South, but will also cause concern to people living in the future, without them being able to derive any benefit from it.
Fourth
nuclear power remains a high-risk technology that cannot be fully controlled by humans.
The constant comparison that the German nuclear power plants are the safest in the world ultimately has no meaning as to whether they are safe or not.
In case of doubt, the predicate of safety only exists up to the accident, which would have far-reaching consequences in terms of both space and time.
The last three nuclear power plants in Germany in question are 34 years old.
The last security checks took place in 2009, i.e. 13 years ago (!).
Since commissioning, there have been a total of 407 reportable events in the three remaining reactors (events relevant to safety, which potentially also include radiation leaks);
in addition to the events that are not subject to this reporting obligation.
Even the safest power plants will never be free from the danger of a super meltdown, the reactor catastrophe with core meltdown and the release of radioactive radiation.
After the reactor catastrophe in what is now Chernobyl, Ukraine (1986), reference was made to outdated Soviet technology.
After the GAU in Fukushima, Japan (2011), when a tsunami of this magnitude was simply not expected, this was no longer possible.
Climate change will ensure more such unpredictability due to weather extremes.
What happens,
if - as can already be observed in France - nuclear power plants can no longer be adequately cooled due to the rising temperatures of the surrounding rivers?
Or do catastrophes suddenly and unexpectedly - such as the flood disaster in the Aartal valley - destroy the entire infrastructure?
It is not without reason that the question of liability in a stretching operation is still unresolved.
The operating companies of the nuclear power plants no longer want to take over these from 2023.
Fifth
, as Russia has demonstrated to the world, nuclear power plants are doubly strategic in war.
Those who bring the central and large supply systems for electricity generation under their control can control large parts of social life.
In addition to the control function, there is a deterrent function.
If you attack a nuclear power plant directly, you always provoke or risk a super meltdown.
Putin's associated threat to NATO not to interfere in his war was as drastic as it was unequivocal.
But terrorist attacks also pose a significant risk with regard to nuclear power plants and highly radioactive nuclear waste.
If these
five
problem areas of nuclear power are considered against all one-dimensional arguments in favor of nuclear power, the contradictions in the debate become apparent: Aggressive war is morally condemned, but at the same time great risks and the exploitation of people and their natural environment are permitted.
Even future generations are held responsible without being asked.
Today's nuclear-powered societies add to a historical debt with each passing day that nuclear power plants are still online, which will not justify a warm shower.