Forty years ago, almost to the day, the Chornobyl disaster sparked a widespread movement against nuclear energy. Today it is clear that, without the nuclear phase-out, Germany would be much worse off economically. Renewables are now by far the cheapest form of electricity generation, while nuclear is easily the most expensive.
One of my earliest childhood memories is of a playground in the German city of Siegen, cordoned off with tape. No one was allowed to play there. Now reminiscent of the Covid-19 lockdown, this was for a different reason back in 1986. “It’s because of the radioactive rain from Chernobyl,” my parents explained.
They had already taken me to demonstrations, for instance against the fast breeder reactor in Kalkar, on the Rhine. Completed in 1985, the reactor never went online; the safety concerns were too great, the resistance too resolute. The site and its buildings were eventually converted into an amusement park, Wunderland Kalkar – a move with powerful symbolic value.
While Kalkar was successfully blocked, other nuclear plants did go online. In the case of Brokdorf nuclear power station in Schleswig-Holstein, this was only six months after the Chornobyl disaster. The history of the plant is marked by conflict: during its ten-year construction period and throughout its entire operational life, there were fierce disputes over nuclear energy – both in Brokdorf and in Germany as a whole.
I, too, participated in these protests. As a young environmental activist, I frequently stood at the gates of the power station – most recently in 2010. At that time, the German government had just done a U-turn on the agreed nuclear phase-out and extended nuclear power plants’ operating licences – until 2033 in the case of Brokdorf. But just one year later, in 2011, the Fukushima disaster led to a political rethink. The CDU, the SPD, the Greens, and Die Linke jointly agreed on a definitive phase-out. At the end of 2021, after 35 years’ operation and decades of intense political debate, Brokdorf nuclear power plant was taken off grid. This was a full circle moment for me; as Schleswig-Holstein’s energy transition minister, I was the one who ordered its decommissioning.
The economic balance sheet: Nuclear power as a discontinued model
The story of Germany’s nuclear phase-out is more than just a chapter in energy policy. It tells of the country’s political coming of age and of a dawning understanding of the limits of human control over high-risk technologies. It is also closely linked to the rise of environmental movements and of the Green Party. Admittedly, isolated attempts are still being made to breathe new life into nuclear energy. But one thing is undeniable: it no longer represents a promise for the future. On the contrary – nuclear power has become by far the most expensive form of electricity generation and, in many places, is hampering the expansion of what has long been available, economical, and sustainable: renewable energies.
Added to this are the enormous back-end costs. The disposal of radioactive waste alone is expected to cost Germany around 170 billion euros by the year 2100, a sum that is nowhere near covered by the reserves set aside during the era of nuclear power use. Forty years after Chornobyl, a clear conclusion can therefore be drawn: the nuclear phase-out was and remains a godsend for Germany. It led the country out of an economic impasse and paved the way for the growth of renewable energies, which already cover well over half of the country’s electricity needs. Renewables will contribute to significantly lower energy prices over the coming years, particularly if the price of fossil fuels rises appreciably.
Rising costs, growing risks
Even EnBW, one of Germany’s largest energy companies and itself a former nuclear power station operator, is unequivocal here: nuclear energy is no longer an economical form of electricity generation. On its website, the company makes clear that both the construction of new nuclear power stations and the recommissioning of existing ones would be economic nonsense – too expensive, too time-consuming, and an obstacle to the urgently needed, rapid expansion of renewable energies. The World Nuclear Industry Status Report, co-published by the Heinrich Böll Foundation, also highlights that globally, the costs of nuclear energy continue to rise, while its expansion – with the exception of China – has virtually ground to a halt. At the same time, increasing numbers of reactors are reaching the end of their operational lives and thus pose a growing risk.
Recent events make clear just how real these risks are. In Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine, and Bushehr, Iran, nuclear power plant personnel have been evacuated because of imminent danger due to missile strikes, while in Chornobyl, the protective shelter covering the destroyed (and still radioactive) reactor ruins was severely damaged by an attack drone in February 2025. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recently issued another stark warning about the potentially dramatic consequences of such actions for the safety of entire regions.
Renewables as an economic necessity
There are many compelling reasons for adopting a nuclear phase-out internationally. They include the technology’s dependence on Russian uranium and on Chinese and Russian industrial inputs. But economic arguments remain the most persuasive. The billions that have been – and in some places still are – invested in sometimes decades-long construction projects and failure-prone nuclear power stations would have been put to far better use as investments in renewable energies, if only in terms of production costs.
In addition to safety concerns and unresolved waste disposal problems, there is a key, often underestimated factor: major economic losses in the face of global competition. Those who hinder the expansion of renewable energies by clinging to nuclear power are squandering key value-creation potential for the future. It is already foreseeable that, in the future, economic power will be held by those who can produce energy cheaply, sustainably, and at scale.
High production costs resulting from the use of fossil fuels, on the other hand, are increasingly becoming a significant locational disadvantage. This isn’t ideology; it’s economic reality and pure logic. It is just as logical to drive technological progress in a targeted manner – for example through investment in fusion research. Fusion power is considered significantly less risky than traditional nuclear power but will not be able to make a reliable contribution to an affordable energy supply for the foreseeable future. There is only one option left: to wholeheartedly embrace renewables. This makes it all the more alarming that the German government under Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Economics Minister Katherina Reiche is holding the country back from pursuing this path.
Further reading (in German):
- Dossier "Nach Tschernobyl - Dokumente und Perspektiven einer grünen Geschichte"
- Dossier "Tschernobyl: 40 Jahre nach der Katastrophe - Atomkraft im Osten Europas"
- böll.fakten "Atomenergie"
Get Involved - Presidents' column
Get involved! There’s no other way to be real – thus the message of Heinrich Böll, and, to this day, his encouragement is inspiring us. With this column the Presidents of the Foundation involve themselves in current social and political debates. This column will appear each month, authored, in turn, by Jan Philipp Albrecht and Imme Scholz.