Over the past five years, Germany’s nuclear program has contracted toward closure, with the final reactors shut in 2023 and nuclear power effectively contributing zero to the current energy mix.
In overview
Over the past five years, Germany’s nuclear program has contracted toward closure, with the final reactors shut in 2023 and nuclear power effectively contributing zero to the current energy mix. The energy system has adapted by leaning on coal, renewables, and gas imports, with a temporary extension of the last reactors to cushion gas-supply disruptions. This showcases the core tension in Germany’s energy strategy: balancing reliability, decarbonization, and energy sovereignty within a densely connected European energy framework.
Nuclear energy history and current status
Germany’s nuclear story stretches from a period of rapid expansion to a deliberate move toward phase-out. German support for nuclear energy was firm in the 1970s following the oil price shock of 1974 and the perception of vulnerability regarding energy supplies. The nuclear fleet grew to 17 reactors that contributed a meaningful share of the nation’s electricity. Following the Chernobyl accident in 1986, support for nuclear power waned, and the last new nuclear power plant was commissioned in 1989. By the start of 2011, the country’s 17 nuclear power reactors, comprising 15% of installed capacity, supplied more than one-quarter of the electricity (133 TWh net in 2010). However, this time the Fukushima accident in 2011 catalyzed a decisive policy shift in Germany: the fleet was reduced from 17 reactors to nine by the end of 2011, then to three by January 2022. The initial plan was to close all of them by the end of 2022; however, the disruption of natural gas supplies from Russia in 2022 exposed a structural vulnerability in Germany’s energy system. In response, authorities temporarily kept the last three nuclear reactors running through mid-April 2023 to sustain electricity reliability during gas-supply volatility. This trajectory reflects a deliberate societal and political choice to exit nuclear power while redefining the country’s decarbonization path.
Germany’s energy mix has long balanced coal and imports with a growing, though variable, contribution from wind and solar. Yet actual wind and solar generation remains well below their annual share due to intermittency, meaning oil, coal, and gas continue to supply a substantial portion of electricity. Germany’s position as a major electricity trader—exporting to neighboring countries and intermittently importing from France—underscores a highly interconnected grid that must constantly balance variable supply with demand. Nuclear power, once a steady pillar of the system, has receded from the equation as Germany pivots toward decarbonization through renewables and efficiency while relying on imports to maintain reliability.
Subject of debate: the role of nuclear power in the energy transition
The role of nuclear energy in Germany’s energy transition remains a subject of debate to this day. For example, a recent study from Quantified Carbon for WePlanet on the role of nuclear in Germany’s decarbonization suggests that the Energiewende (energy transition), aiming for climate neutrality by 2045, faces amplified challenges after completing the nuclear phase-out in 2023, including potential threats to energy security, affordability, and resilience.
The study describes how the nuclear phase-out has intensified the push to expand renewables and develop storage to manage solar and wind intermittency. Germany’s target of around 80% renewable electricity by 2030 and near-full decarbonization by the mid-2030s has, however, been tempered by grid expansion lags, bottlenecks, and delayed offshore connections—illustrative cases include offshore wind projects delayed by up to two years. These bottlenecks drive higher redispatch needs, recent curtailment levels (approximately 19 TWh in 2023), and price volatility, all of which complicate deployment and profitability for low-carbon technologies.
Concretely, the study compared two scenarios for the energy transition: scenario 1, which includes nuclear energy, and scenario 2, based on a renewables-only scenario, using a detailed 33-year weather-inclusive model. It found that incorporating nuclear (scenario 1) yields a more stable, cost-effective, and decarbonized system with better energy security and market resilience, whereas excluding nuclear (scenario 2) leads to higher costs and greater integration and resource challenges. In line with this, the study also recommends restarting recently closed reactors by 2050 for firm power and cheaper integration, and preparing for new nuclear construction with robust regulatory, financing, and workforce frameworks. Additionally, it advocates for accelerating renewable deployment alongside grid upgrades, storage, and flexible resources to support overall decarbonization. This study, therefore, raises a bigger discussion on what the role of nuclear energy should be in decarbonization efforts.
Concluding discussion
Germany’s climate goals render nuclear energy a contentious option, with clear pros and cons. Nuclear provides low lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, reliable baseload power, and a small land footprint for large output, supporting stability and freeing land for other uses, while complementing renewables by offsetting intermittency and smoothing electricity prices. However, unresolved radioactive waste and long-term stewardship, potential environmental and health risks from accidents, and concerns about water use and uranium mining are serious disadvantages of nuclear energy. While cutting greenhouse gases is vital to combat climate change, it is paramount to also look at the broader environmental picture.
Clearly, there are supporters and opponents of the use of nuclear energy in Germany. In this debate, I still argue that given Germany’s phase-out trajectory, restarting nuclear energy is not a good idea. It will cost a lot, while there are also many disadvantages that we should not overlook. Instead, in my view, the focus and financial investment should be on advancing a renewable-dominated transition by strengthening current weak points rather than reinstating nuclear. This entails accelerating grid expansion and modernization, expanding interconnections, and simplifying permitting and regulation. It also requires more energy storage, greater demand-side flexibility, improved market design for stable investment returns, and tackling supply-chain and material-cost challenges. Emphasizing grid reliability, regional balancing, and targeted support for wind, solar, storage, and hydrogen could reduce curtailment, lower costs, and boost energy security while helping meet climate goals without reintroducing nuclear energy.
This Post was submitted by Climate Scorecard Germany Country Manager, Monique de Ritter.