Arne Jungjohann est directeur du Programme environnemental de la Fondation Heinrich Böll. Il a soumis son commentaire à EurActiv.
"Germany's plans to phase-out nuclear power seemed to catch many around the world by surprise and create a fair amount of scepticism. Some painted it as a 'panicked overreaction' and even 'environmental vandalism' [following] the nuclear meltdown in Japan.
One can argue that Germans are more risk-averse than other cultures. The accident of Chernobyl in 1986 resulted in a radioactive cloud over large parts of Europe for several weeks. It was a smart precaution to stay out of the rain and skip eating vegetables to avoid contamination. After experiencing this physical threat to personal health, Germans are more concerned about the risks of nuclear power than others might be.
The Fukushima accident not only confirmed this scepticism, it [also] demonstrated the need for a new risk assessment: If a high-tech nation like Japan is not able to cope with a nuclear meltdown, why should Germany be? And why let a few corporations make all the profits when taxpayers are asked to pay billions for an accident in the end?
With 80 million people and half the size of Texas, Germany is so densely populated that a nuclear disaster would turn into an economic catastrophe beyond imagination.
A decade ago, Germany started transitioning towards a low-carbon economy. The share of renewable power has tripled. Wind farms, solar modules, biogas and hydro power provide 18% of Germany's power supply. Today, renewables are a reliable and indispensable pillar of Germany's power supply that keep trains running and factories humming.
The sector is fast-growing and provides 370,000 good-paying jobs - much more than the 22,000 jobs in Germany's lignite coal industry. Many of these jobs are within traditional industries, such as steel workers, farmers and the ceramic and glass industries.
Critics argue that Germany will hurt its economy by raising energy costs, replacing nuclear power with imports from France, and building more coal plants, thus increasing carbon emissions. The facts do not bear this out.
First, Germany is able to supply its power needs on its own without nuclear. The country has been mostly a net exporter of power over the last decade. Depending on time of day and year, households and industry consume power from 40,000 to 80,000 Megawatts. Even if all 17 nuclear power stations were shut down at once, coal, gas, and renewables still provide a capacity of 81,000 Megawatts.
Power is imported not out of a lack of supply, but as an economic decision to shop where prices are lowest. Though Germany often imports electricity from France during the spring and fall, the relationship is reciprocal: in summer and winter, France imports power from Germany. When temperatures rise and the water levels drop, river-cooled nuclear reactors have to reduce output or be shut down.
Second, the nuclear phase-out does not jeopardise Germany's ambitious climate action efforts: reducing carbon emissions by 40% by 2020 and by at least 80% by 2050. [Under the] rules of the EU carbon market, emissions from the energy sector are capped. Even if coal were to replace nuclear capacity, emissions will have to be reduced within the entire sector, either by shifting to natural gas or by replacing old coal plants with more efficient ones.
Third, a shift to a renewable energy powered economy comes with costs. However, this price tag is modest in comparison to the heavy burden that nuclear brings. Over the last 40 years, the German nuclear industry has been pampered with more than 200 billion euros in subsidies. In comparison, renewable energy technologies have been incentivised by about 4.8 billion euros in 2010. By replacing fossil fuel imports and avoiding health costs, renewables already pay off today.
When the German parliament passes the nuclear phase-out legislation in early July, it will be accompanied by seven other laws to accelerate investments in renewables and retrofitting of houses, to increase energy efficiency, to develop new storage technologies, and to improve the energy grid infrastructure. By 2020, Germany aims to supply its economy with at least 35% of renewable power, by mid-century with at least 80%.
Politics, too, played a role in the recent decision. Chancellor Angela Merkel used to be a strong proponent of nuclear. Her governing coalition has paid a high price for this. The Green Party has won one election after another. In the most recent state election, Merkel's Conservative Party came in third behind the Greens. Her reversal on nuclear policy after Fukushima was driven by the understanding that most Germans across the political spectrum favor a phase-out as soon as possible.
Germany's gradual nuclear phase out is neither unique – Japan, Switzerland and Italy are following suit – nor a hysterical overreaction. It is yet another cornerstone in a comprehensive, long-term strategy of industrial modernisation that turns the energy challenge into an economic opportunity. Saying 'Auf Wiedersehen' to nuclear will accelerate the transition towards a low-carbon economy."