Germany’s nuclear phase-out was largely settled years ago, with little controversy when the decision to end reliance on nuclear power by the end of 2022 was announced. Yet the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the resulting energy crunch reshaped the country’s approach, pulling the EU’s largest economy toward economic strain. After completing the final energy-supply stress tests, Deputy Chancellor and Economy and Climate Minister Robert Habeck confirmed that two of the three remaining nuclear reactors would stay in reserve until April 2023.
The move is framed as a contingency plan. It serves as a fallback if conventional energy sources for homes and industry prove insufficient, a safeguard Habeck calls the ministry’s emergency measure to shield the nation from a potential supply danger. Among the scenarios considered were the reactivation of coal plants to replace Russian gas, but coal availability has been limited by river transport constraints and droughts affecting summer deliveries. Some forecasts even flagged the possibility that French reactors, which export electricity to Germany, could suspend production, while gas prices remained volatile. All indicators pointed in that direction.
There is a sense of a fractured political consensus. Habeck indicated that there would be no extension of nuclear power or construction of new plants during the current legislative period. For the Greens, the commitment to phasing out nuclear energy remains a non-negotiable pillar of their program.
Germany has long stood behind a broad political consensus to abandon nuclear energy. The Chernobyl disaster left a lasting imprint on public opinion and regional environmental concerns. The Fukushima accident had a decisive impact, leading Merkel’s government to announce a deliberate nuclear blackout by 2022, a stance that reinforced the Greens’ influence and repositioned CDU conservatives in the center of political debate.
Looking ahead, the country’s energy strategy has relied heavily on imported fossil fuels, first from the Soviet bloc and later from the Russian Federation. While the Social Democrats supported the decision, the Free Democratic Party criticized it. FDP leaders argued that every emitted-free kilowatt hour should be prioritized, stressing that the three southern German reactors, where alternatives to renewables are scarcer, should remain in operation.
Internal divisions within the governing coalition have flavored the debate. The Christian Democrats in opposition have urged a more cautious line, with party leader Friedrich Merz calling Habeck’s decision insane in a recent remark.
Operators and environmental groups have added pressure to the discussion. The Isar-2 reactor’s operator, Preussen Elektra, announced that keeping the plant on hold until mid-2024 was technically unfeasible, a stance that has unsettled the minister. Habeck has criticized the company for not fully heeding ministry guidance.
Environmental organizations have voiced disappointment, arguing that maintaining the three remaining nuclear facilities through the end of December would pose unnecessary risks amid an energy crisis. Greenpeace Germany has urged a rapid closure of the plants, asserting that a secure supply does not require keeping older reactors running. Martin Kaiser, head of the environmental NGO, stressed that safeguarding energy security does not justify taking on high-risk infrastructure. [citation]
The debate continues as Germany weighs its path between rapid expansion of renewables, the reliability of the grid, and the immediate needs of households and industry. The stakes are high for a nation that aims to balance climate goals with energy independence, all while navigating the pressures of a volatile European energy market and a shifting geopolitical landscape.