Nuclear power: devil's energy or inexhaustible clean energy?

By Bernhard J. Seliger

Living as a foreign national in South Korea, there are many advantages and rewards. For me as a German, one of the best things is the unfettered technological optimism of the country, which starkly contrasts with the irrational fears that technologies trigger in Germans.

Certainly, the high adoption rates of new technologies, like mobile phones, cashless paying systems and other integrated solutions like taxi services, etc., sometimes come at a price. The recent breakdown of Kakao's services showed how dependent Korea has become on a single platform.

Privacy concerns are sometimes taken too lightly and smartphone addiction is a real problem. But society moves on at a great pace, and is not stuck in endless debates about concerns, but mainly focuses on the promise of new technologies.

In Germany, the difficulty of carrying out in particular large-scale projects like building a new airport for Berlin has become proverbial. Exciting new technologies like the Maglev train were developed in Germany but never used there due to the opposition of citizens.

This year, in the midst of the deepest energy crisis modern Germany ever has been in, due to an overreliance on Russian gas and oil, Germany moved forward to phase out coal and nuclear power simultaneously.

However, the fact remains that despite huge subsidies paid over many decades for renewable energy projects, in particular, wind and solar, and the resulting highest energy prices in the world, Germany often suffers from dark doldrums, when wind and solar contribute next to nothing in regard to electricity production.

And, measured by the primary energy consumption (i.e., electricity plus heating and fuel for transportation), less than half of Germany's energy comes from renewable sources. This is quite an accomplishment and more than in most industrialized countries.

However, it means that the other half of Germany's energy has to come from other, fossil sources, or otherwise massive deindustrialization will take place. After a drastic rise in prices and a drop in quantity coming from Russia, Germany restarted lignite coal power plants, the dirtiest option available, and even floated the idea of bringing oil power stations on ships, another very polluting option, to Germany's shores.

The plan to phase out nuclear power, however, remained sacrosanct for the ruling coalition of Social Democrats, the Green Party and liberals. In particular, the Green Party had been fighting for decades against nuclear power. This fight against the devil's energy actually stands at the beginning of the history of the Green Party in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Today, as a maximum compromise, the Green Party barely accepted that the last three nuclear power plants run until April 2023, instead of already being terminated four months earlier. The German attitude toward nuclear power is actually symptomatic of the technology skepticism prevalent in Germany.

Living a long time, understandably, under the fear of nuclear war in Europe, which was considered much more probable than for example in the U.S. during the Cold War, later this fear translated into a fear of nuclear technology itself, in particular after the nuclear accident in Chernobyl in 1986.

Already at that time, the fear was irrational in that the technology and administrative procedures in the former Soviet Union were completely different from those of West Germany. Later, the Fukushima accident triggered another wave of anti-nuclear sentiment in Germans.

Differently from much of the rest of the world, Germany was one of the only countries taking the radical step of opting out of nuclear energy. In the German media, including public broadcasting, until today in reminiscences of that event, you can read about the "thousands of deaths" due to the nuclear accident in Fukushima, though in fact only one person died directly from the accident, while all the other deaths were from the tsunami that started the nuclear meltdown.

Germany devised a 10-year plan for a nuclear phase-out, with the option of renewable energy substituting it and in the meantime relying more and more on Russian energy. Unfortunately, Germany, once at the forefront of nuclear research to make nuclear technology safer and cleaner, also opted out of nuclear research.

All the newer developments, like smaller, modular nuclear power plants, not to mention the promise of cold fusion, did not happen anymore in Germany. They also were completely disregarded in the German political discourse, where the technologies and challenges of the 1980s still seem to be the standard argument.

When the climate crisis placed a new demand on energy production, namely to be clean in terms of CO2 emissions, this situation posed a dilemma: Renewable energy production was not growing fast enough to compensate for the exit from nuclear and other fossil fuels.

South Korea indeed witnessed a similar debate, but all in all, it was much more pragmatic. True, the last government also envisages a long-term nuclear phase-out. And there is nothing wrong with that, especially when renewable energies and their required technologies (like green hydrogen, battery storage options, etc.) can indeed cover the complete primary energy consumption need.

In the meantime, however, South Korea still relies on nuclear energy to a large extent, and the new government has even renewed its commitment to nuclear energy for the future. It seems remarkable to me how relatively few debates there were on the question. Here the debate I believe was seen by many as a technological question, not an ideological one.

One might argue that more discussions about important technologies are a sign of a mature democracy. But in Germany, the debate was mostly ideological, with disregard for technological or economic considerations, in particular from the fighters for a nuclear-free Germany in the Green Party. The debate brought neither greater consensus in society about the desired energy mix, nor did it bring a better technological solution.

In preparation for this winter, the government as well as cities and states warn of potential blackouts and some politicians seriously talk of energy rationing in Germany. Also, there are warnings that the situation will lead to popular discontent and that police should prepare for protests.

Ironically, this situation is happening in one of the richest countries in the world. But it is more than a comedy. It tremendously hurts the prospects for investment in Germany. Many Germans still believe that their focus on the environment, climate and clean energy can be a role model for others.

This is the basis for German climate diplomacy. Indeed, sustainability is important and to bring forward ideas for a sustainable future ― biodiversity, reduction of CO2 emissions and the fight against land degradation ― is necessary. But if it is done in disregard of facts, in a purely ideological fashion, it will not earn the respect of others, but on the contrary, will only confirm them in not adopting similar policies.

In this respect, Korea's technological optimism is something Germany can learn from. Ironically, this learning might come rather early ― already now, in view of exploding energy costs and the threat of a cold winter, suddenly in opinion polls, Germany's public has changed its decade-old rejection of nuclear power. But will politicians listen to that, or is it too late?

Dr. Bernhard J. Seliger is the resident representative of the Hanns Seidel Foundation (HSF) in Korea, based in Seoul. Before the COVID-19 outbreak, he frequently traveled to North Korea, where he implemented projects on forestry, environment and renewable energy as well as medical cooperation. He is an honorary citizen of Seoul and Gangwon Province.