When it comes to the energy sector, the chancellor should urgently take some extra tuition from his Green-led Economics Ministry. His Minister Robert Habeck should also listen better to his employees. Because there are better arguments for the final nuclear phase-out than missing fuel rods.
Germany is arguing again about nuclear power. Proponents such as Markus Söder and Friedrich Merz, the heads of the CSU and CDU, want the three remaining nuclear power plants in Bavaria, Baden-Württemberg and Lower Saxony to continue producing electricity beyond the turn of the year in order to avoid a “power gap”.
Opponents such as Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) and Federal Minister of Economics Robert Habeck (Greens), on the other hand, reject an extension of the remaining service life for the three nuclear power plants and argue technically: There is a fuel element shortage that makes further electricity production impossible.
Now save articles for later in “Pocket”.
But the fact is that the three remaining nuclear power plants could well continue to run beyond the turn of the year. Eon’s subsidiary PreussenElektra, which operates the Isar 2 nuclear power plant in Lower Bavaria, has repeatedly confirmed to FOCUS Online that there is no shortage of fuel rods.
That is why CSU boss Markus Söder accuses the chancellor of spreading false arguments and “technical nonsense”. However, the three nuclear power plants would have to be operated at a greatly reduced output in order to slow down the burning of the existing elements, says the deputy chairman of the Nuclear Industry Association for Nuclear Technology, Ralf Güldner. In this way you can bridge the time until the delivery of new fuel elements. The normal delivery time for new fuel assemblies is 15 to 18 months. Maybe it could go a little faster. However, Scholz and Habeck reject emergency operation, a so-called plug-in operation, of the three nuclear power plants.
“In the review, we also base our checks on the statements made by the companies. The argument of the fuel rods was only one of many features when reviewing an extension,” a spokeswoman for the Habeck Ministry told FOCUS Online. Various scenarios were examined. Result: “An extension of the runtimes could only make a very limited contribution to solving the problem, and this at very high economic costs and with reductions in the necessary safety checks – and that with a high-risk technology.”
With the issue of fuel rods, Scholz and Habeck make it unnecessarily difficult for themselves in the debate. Scholz and Habeck do not make the right argument against extending the service life of the three nuclear power plants. But the ministry led by Habeck: “We have a problem with gas – and thus the heat supply, not with electricity,” said the ministry: “Because the high dependence on gas from Russia is mainly in the area of heat generation and industry . But nuclear power plants produce electricity, not heat. Nuclear power plants would therefore result in very little gas savings.”
Also read on the topic: Electricity and heat supply – Habeck vs. Söder: Who is lying in the nuclear debate?
In the electricity sector, the three nuclear power plants Isar 2, Emsland and Neckarwestheim 2 that are still connected to the grid cover an average of around 30 terawatt hours (TWh) per year with a total output of 4300 megawatts (MW) – that is around 5 percent of German electricity production. The Economics Ministry argues that they would primarily replace electricity from lignite-fired power plants, making little contribution to increasing independence from Russian gas imports. This was also confirmed by energy experts to FOCUS Online.
When it comes to power supply, nuclear power plants cannot replace gas-fired power plants. Because gas-fired power plants cover the peak load in the electricity sector and are used when power consumption suddenly rises sharply around midday and solar power plants cannot cover the additional demand. Nuclear power, on the other hand, covers the base load for the power supply, i.e. the electricity demand that is needed day and night. Like lignite-fired power plants, nuclear power plants are very cumbersome to regulate, start up and shut down and are therefore not suitable for replacing gas-fired power plants, which have to be started up at lightning speed when needed.
There would also be no price advantage if nuclear power plants continued to be used, since the last power plants used to cover the peak load dictate the entire electricity price.
Conclusion: Why Habeck and Scholz repeatedly rely on the wrong arguments instead of using the right ones remains a mystery. In this way, the two only extend the ghost debate about an alleged “power gap”.
Also interesting:
