Proof the Greens put ideology over facts in the "Atomausstieg"

How difficult is it to keep the nuclear power plants in Germany open a bit longer? The responsible minister Habeck was lied to, and in turn gave the wrong impression to the German public about this. What will he do next?

Based on the evidence it’s unclear whether he knew he was lied to and found it convenient, or whether the fact that he fired the main culprit indicates he disliked it. I think it was regrettable but predictable that the Greens ended up opposing keeping nuclear open, but I still hope this will change.

In this blog I will discuss/translate the highlights from the German article (that unearthed secret documents) that is behind the furore.

I will also use my expertise to give also some context, especially to those not from Germany.

Context 1: nuclear is political kryptonite in Germany, comparable to abortion in the US

The “Atomausstieg” (“Atom” meaning not just atom but in this case nuclear, and “ausstieg” meaning exit) is so politicially charged in Germany that you should compare it to abortion in the US or Brexit in the UK. Habeck saying “let’s keep nuclear open for a few more years” is the political equivalent of Biden saying “let’s make abortion harder for a few years” or Sunak saying “Brexit was a bad idea”.

For many in Habeck’s party “the Greens” it has been their life’s work to close nuclear. (I think this stance was born from being close to Chernobyl, from the prominent pacifism in Germany, and from feeling responsible for the second world war and the atom bombs it created.) More recently the Greens have also been the party behind the “Energiewende” (“wende” meaning transition) that reduced the price of solar worldwide. They see that as their way to make up for the climate impact of closing nuclear. So, it’s complicated.

Context 2: I think the hasty “Atomausstieg” is a bad idea

Since I’m giving you context I think I should be open about my position as well. I lead a group of researchers that wants to accelerate the transition from fossil fuels to low carbon energy. I do this at the Eindhoven University of Technology with a personal focus on solar, wind and electric vehicles. But my masters degree is actually in how to be a policy maker, and that helps here.

My position on nuclear is that new nuclear doesn’t look promising compared to solar and wind with storage, mainly due to what I see as nuclear’s high cost and uncertainty. But I also think existing nuclear power plants are usually very safe and environmentally friendly. I think they should not be closed any time soon. Certainly not before we close coal fired power plants.

I don’t see a strong link to Russia’s war on Ukraine. The LNG from the US played a much more important role than nuclear in replacing Russian gas, since most of the gas is used for heating and industrial processes. Nuclear only helps for the small amount of gas for electricity that it would replace. So it’s not that relevant to Russia’s war on Ukraine.

But closing nuclear before coal worsens climate change.
And politicians should never distort the truth for ideological reasons.

What proof of deceit did Cicero unearth?

A link to the story of Cicero can be found here - consider subscribing if you are German. A link to an archived version without paywall here.

The bottom line is simple: nuclear experts said extension was possible and not dangerous, but possibly expensive and not within the current laws. Political operatives hid that information and claimed it was impossible and unsafe. Habeck largely went with the political operatives.

To pin it all on Habeck as many are now doing, and to pretend this was somehow unexpected and puts everything in a completely new light is mainly politics combined with producing clickbait in my opinion. But let me give you a blow-by-blow of the article to show why I think that, and then I will conclude with my impressions.

·         Introduction: Greens are extreme and nuclear is needed
The article sets the scene by introducing the controversial Green politician Jürgen Trittin (who has no real role in the rest of the story) celebrating the “Atomausstieg”. The author then claims that worldwide people start to recognize that you need nuclear and that you can’t do it with solar and wind alone.
Professionally I see the opposite, with more and more people recognizing a system with mainly solar and wind is cost effectively possible due to e.g. batteries and P2X (see e.g. here and here). However, both views are irrelevant here. What is relevant, is that most experts and most people worldwide think it’s a bad idea that Germany is exiting nuclear before coal.

·         A judge orders Habecks ministry to disclose relevant documents
Cicero did some really good research journalism by unearthing these documents in my opinion.

·         Nuclear power plant owner RWE doesn’t want to keep nuclear open
Habeck is the boss (Minister) and Graichen (now fired) was his highest subordinate (Staatssekretär). They met with Krebber, CEO of energy producer RWE (two of six nuclear power plants). Cicero recovered an email with memo from Krebber to Habeck saying (first page here).
Krebber claims it’s going to be “a long process” requiring “considerable retrofits” that would be almost impossible and probably illegal to do quickly. I think Graichen was right here when he summarizes it as “RWE is telling us it doesn’t want to keep nuclear open longer”.

·         Habeck states he will look into keeping nuclear open, without ideology
The rest of the document makes clear he didn’t manage to do it without ideology in my opinion.

·         Arguments for nuclear disappear
Robert Heinrich, a leading figure in the ministry of Economy, asks his legal professional Volker Oschmann, to produce the document that Habeck needs to prove he’s looked into keeping the nuclear power plants open longer.
In this part of the correspondence, Cicero finds a memo who’s writer is blacked out but that seems related to the “taskforce energy” that researches how to survive the winter without Russian gas. They say (and I paraphrase a little bit for clarity): “it’s unclear if we can store enough gas, so it’s very risky to stop nuclear and only rely on reserves and restarting some coal fired power plants”. Also “keeping nuclear open would sometimes make electricity cheaper too”. Cicero is right to claim that it’s bad that these arguments seem “forgotten” in the rest of the saga.
Habecks PR department claims only Graichen saw this document and Habeck never knew. Cicero suggests this is proof of the old Green shadowpowers that Habeck is beholden to. From my perspective I can say that these arguments are well known to anybody who knows anything about energy systems. Habeck isn’t stupid so he must have known, with or without memo. Unfortunately quantification is missing. So to me it’s just a memo of a taskforce that wants all instruments that could avoid gas scarcity on the table but that without quantification is only stating the obvious. However, that the arguments never resurfaced shows this was evaluated ideologically, contrary to what Habeck promised.

·         Writing the nuclear experts out of the loop
In the ministry of the environment what happened was worse in my opinion. The three names to remember here are Minister Lemke, Staatssekretär Tidow and legal professional Gerrit Niehaus. Niehaus is the one who replaces a memo from experts saying a safe nuclear extension was possible, with his own one saying it wasn’t.
The expert memo was from the GRS (the organisation responsible for nuclear reactor safety) that basically states (my summary): “Keeping nuclear open a bit longer safely is certainly possible. But it might be expensive and probably requires loosening the legal language surrounding the “Atomausstieg” a bit”.
Niehaus replaces that with a memo saying: “it’s legally impossible and unsafe”. In the second version of the memo the GRS is no longer mentioned. Probably because everybody knew the memo was at odds with the GRS.

·         Habeck only gets the error prone anti-nucear memo and chaos ensues
The boss of Niehaus (Staatssekretär Stefan Tidow) only sends the new (factually incorrect but politically correct) memo to Patrick Graichen (the Staatssekretär under Habeck). Graichen apparently turns that into an even more political and incorrect version. We know this because we know the reaction of Niehaus after he sees this new version: “The introduction, especially the judicial part, is badly wrong. Also, I’m not willing to agree that “required retrofits didn’t take place”. I’ve tried to limit the damage as much as possible.” But befor Tidow can send Graichen the version where Niehaus tried to limit the damage, Graichen sends the badly wrong version to Habeck. Graichen updates Habeck Friday afternoon, saying “Tidow will make some improvements but that can wait till next week”.
That weekend Habeck translates the hard to read text into a story with a FAQ and sends it to Graichen and Tidow. They completely rewrite it and hope that’s it. “In the debate next Tuesday we will pull the plug and we will finally be able to concentrate on other matters.” But that will not happen.

·         Bayern asks prime minister Olaf Scholz to step in
Energy minister Hubert Aiwanger of the federal state of Bayern writes Olaf Scholtz that what Habeck says in the press seems based on wrongful information and asks Scholtz to use his power to enable keeping the two nuclear power plants in Bayern open.
Three and a half months later (October 17^th 2022) Scholtz formally asks his Ministers Lemke and Habeck to keep three nuclear power plants open through the winter. This after the four big grid companies did a stress tests that indicated there could be a problem during cold weather (as already mentioned in the taskfore energy memo from March).

·         Losing the battle but winning the war?
It was a loss for the Greens that they had to keep some nuclear power plants open one more year. But their win was that keeping them open for longer is currently off the table.
However, if the government would be replaced by one with CDU and CSU, they have declared they will try to keep nuclear power plants open.

Conclusion: of course Habeck knew, but it’s his actions that count

To me the argument that the truth was hidden from Habeck is implausible. He’s not stupid and if I and anybody following this discussion for a while knew, he must have known as well.

On the other hand it’s very difficult to go against your department and your party if you want to remain in office as a politician, and the “party line” against nuclear couldn’t be clearer for the old hands in power at the Greens and the ministries. So did he push back or did he encourage it? That’s very hard to say based on what we know but he clearly scored closer to an F than an A here.

It is also hard to argue that keeping nuclear open is needed to survive the lack of Russian gas due to the Ukraine war. And Habeck deserves kudo’s for the tenacity by which he hunted for LNG from the US. This made sure there are now large gas reserves, and the winter never threatened to deplete them. The threat for the next winter is now much lower still.

So in a way we are back to square one: because the Atomausstieg is still bad for the climate. I think it’s time the Greens went against their own dogma’s and against the passionate old guard within their own party. They should strive for nuclear to stay open until coal is phased out. They of all parties should be on the side of avoiding climate change. If Habeck came out and said that, he would be a truly great leader.

In my humble opinion of course.