Chancellor Friedrich Merz, speaking to the German Chamber of Industry and Commerce in Dessau yesterday, said Germany’s decision to close all its nuclear power plants was a “huge mistake” and had come at a heavy cost to its economy.
His comments reignited debate over the country’s long-term energy strategy and power generation capacity.
Merz said, “Phasing out nuclear power was a serious strategic mistake… We don’t have enough energy production capacity.”
Germany’s energy system now relies on state intervention to keep prices at acceptable levels.
“To get acceptable market prices for energy production again, we will have to permanently subsidize energy prices from the federal budget,” Merz said. “We can’t do this for long,” he said.
Germany’s nuclear phase-out accelerated after the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan in March 2011. The government led by then-Chancellor Angela Merkel moved to set in motion an exit plan, which was first adopted in 2000. The purpose of this policy was to move forward while simultaneously reducing nuclear risks. Energiewendeor “Energy Turnaround”, Germany’s energy transition focused on renewable energy.
Merz said the decision to exit nuclear power would have long-term strategic consequences.
In the 2010s, Germany gradually retired its nuclear fleet. The phase-out concluded in April 2023, when the last three reactors – Isar 2, Emsland and Neckarwestheim 2 – were taken permanently offline, ending nearly six decades of nuclear power generation.
They closed amid Europe’s energy crisis following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Despite renewed debate about the role of nuclear power in energy security, the operational life of the remaining reactors was extended for only three months before being shut down.
Merz said Germany should have retained its last remaining nuclear capability at least during that period.
“If you’re going to do this, you should have left the last remaining nuclear power plant in Germany on the grid at least three years ago, so you would have at least the same power generation capacity that we had by then,” he said.
He said the nuclear exit has contributed to higher costs and complexity in Germany’s energy transition.
“So now we’re making the most expensive energy transition in the entire world,” he said. “I don’t know of any other country that makes things as expensive and difficult as Germany.”
The nuclear phase-out, supported by successive governments, has been criticized by opponents as complicating Germany’s goal of achieving climate neutrality by 2045.
Although Merz has argued that Germany should have retained nuclear capacity, restarting permanently closed reactors is widely considered impractical.
According to the German energy news portal clean energy wireOnce reactors are permanently shut down or de-fueled, safety systems are destroyed or disabled and key components begin to deteriorate without active maintenance.
In Germany, the last nuclear plants have been completely de-fueled and partially dismantled, meaning any restart would require rebuilding large parts of the facilities.
Merz said the current government had to face the consequences of past decisions.
“We’ve inherited something that we now have to fix,” he said, “but we don’t have enough energy production capacity.”
Regulatory hurdles further complicate any revival. Once decommissioning begins, operating licenses are permanently revoked and restarting the reactors will require new approvals, a full safety review and compliance with modern nuclear standards.
Public opposition to nuclear energy also remains strong, especially in Germany. clean energy wire.
The World Nuclear Association has said costs present another major hurdle, with restart estimates for retrofits, safety upgrades and staffing running into hundreds of millions or even billions of euros.
Due to Germany’s heavy investment in renewable energy, electricity imports from neighboring countries, and EU emissions regulations, restarting old reactors is generally considered economically unattractive.
Some political voices argue that maintaining nuclear power – or investing in new reactors – could provide greater energy independence or price stability.
France is often cited as an example. It generates about 65 percent to 70 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, producing a largely low-carbon electricity mix and reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels.
It also plans to build at least six new reactors by the mid-2030s, although high construction costs have pushed up prices in recent years.
In Germany, Merz’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party has proposed investigating whether recently closed reactors can be technically reactivated and has expressed support for advanced nuclear technologies, without offering any concrete plans for restarting the plants.
The Greens strongly oppose nuclear power and consider phasing it out as irreversible, while the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has been one of the strongest supporters of restarting or expanding nuclear capacity.
<a href