Against the background of skyrocketing electricity and gas prices, there are increasing numbers of voices in favor of extending nuclear power plant operating times. In an interview, environmental economist Andreas Loechel calls for saving gas. Because the three remaining nuclear power plants would not provide heat in winter.
Mr Loechel, how important is nuclear power for the energy supply in Germany?
Andreas Loeschel: The three remaining nuclear power plants have an output of a good four gigawatts. This corresponds to about six percent of the total electricity generation in Germany. Today, nuclear power only makes up a small part of the energy supply. It used to be a very important component, 15 years ago they supplied five times as much electricity. Today it is no longer of paramount importance.
Can the nuclear power plants help to prevent bottlenecks?
Apart from brief maintenance, the nuclear power plants run practically non-stop and supply energy constantly. By generating electricity, nuclear power plants help to alleviate the difficult situation on the electricity markets. Electricity prices are exploding, this week a kilowatt hour almost constantly cost more than 30 cents, that's crazy. In addition, there are temporary shortages that have caused prices to shoot up to almost 70 cents. Flexible gas and coal-fired power plants are then in demand. You can cushion such price spikes. They are switched on when things get tight and shut down again when the situation calms down. Nuclear power plants can hardly assume this function.
Why?
Because it would be too expensive. Switching nuclear power plants on and off is very expensive, the process takes hours, and each cycle change puts a strain on the material. They are much less flexible than, say, gas-fired power plants. They are already being used frequently, especially in the evenings when little solar or wind energy is being fed into the grid.
So wouldn't the three kilns save us from freezing in winter, even if they ran longer?
We are in a real crisis situation on the electricity market. There is a lack of electricity in Europe. This is mainly due to the fact that more than half of the 56 nuclear power plants in France are idle due to damage or maintenance work, or because the cooling water in the rivers has become too warm due to the intense heat. Germany therefore exports massive amounts of electricity to France. At the moment everything that generates electricity is good, including the three German nuclear power plants. The federal government wants to find out whether the situation will improve in winter with another stress test. But nuclear power will not save us from freezing. Many gas-fired power plants also produce heat in addition to electricity, while nuclear power plants do not. At best, we could use them to save the gas that would otherwise be used to produce electricity. But that probably wouldn't be much. Coal-fired power plants would help more here, also in terms of volume.
How long do the old fuel rods in the nuclear power plants last?
The fuel should be designed to last until the end of the terms in December. If the running times were extended by a few months, this would only be possible in so-called stretching operation. The power plants then do not run at full power, but are throttled. That doesn't help much to get through the winter. Electricity is no longer produced, only over a longer period of time. And with that, practically no gas should be saved overall. If nuclear power plant operating times were generally extended, the operators would not only have to procure new fuel elements, but safety checks would also have to be carried out and liability issues would have to be clarified. But then the power plants would probably come to a standstill for the time being. And then we are already in the next winter - if it goes that fast at all.
Does that also mean that electricity would not become cheaper for the time being?
Nuclear power would help against the extremely high prices. But continued operation would not fundamentally change the situation, nuclear power would not be a game changer. They run all the time and we still have very high prices. Electricity prices are more likely to be influenced by high gas prices. I see greater leverage here in the rapid expansion of renewable energies and the use of coal-fired power plants, which would have to leave the market or be held in reserve. You shouldn't expect a big drop in price by extending the term.
Does it make economic sense to extend the terms?
For France, we know that extending the term by ten years would cost around 100 billion euros. A longer operation could also be associated with considerable costs here in Germany. You will have to take that into account. The operators know that and don't want to extend it either. They've put forward all sorts of arguments: problems with procurement of fuel elements, personnel planning and above all safety issues.
A nuclear power plant must be inspected every ten years. However, the operators did not carry out this safety check in 2019 because the piles are supposed to go offline at the end of 2022 anyway.
Yes, that is one of the unanswered questions: would there even be an operating permit? A full security audit is extensive and takes time. So you would probably be in a gray area. And who then secures that? The state would probably have to make a very strong commitment. A runtime extension would not be available for free. No one has presented an invoice yet.
How much does nuclear power cost us?
You have to make a strong distinction: The total costs including construction, operation and disposal are very high, which makes nuclear power very expensive overall. We are seeing this in the construction projects in Finland, France and Great Britain. That's why nobody in Germany wants to build a nuclear power plant for a long time, because it can never pay off. Pure operation, on the other hand, is cheap: if you allocate the variable costs for the fuel rods, for example, a nuclear power plant comes to less than 2 cents per kilowatt hour. That's why the power plants are practically always running. If you let them run longer, this calculation is no longer correct. Then you would also have to take into account the maintenance costs, which increase sharply with age. And the question of final storage costs is unfortunately completely pushed aside. We don't have a repository at all yet, storage is scheduled to begin in 2050. An extension of the service life of the three remaining power plants would probably not change the amount of highly radioactive nuclear waste significantly. But this aspect cannot be completely ignored.
Can the nuclear power that will be lost be replaced from 2023?
Yes, that could be replaced, among other things by more coal-fired power plants. We have a number of power plants in reserve that will be brought back to market. Shutdowns of power plants should also be considered, as well as possible reactivations. In total, this should secure three times as much output as the remaining nuclear power plants. The federal government should now address this quickly. A lot has just been initiated for the expansion of renewable energies, the long-term key success factor. Only then will it become clear whether the ambitious goals will actually be met.
What do you say as scientists - is nuclear power a necessary evil to bridge or should we stay away from it?
In my opinion, far too much attention is being paid to the discussion about nuclear energy right now. What we need now is a massive cut in gas demand. This is of key importance. If it were clear that the costs of extending the service life - and I also mean the political costs - are small compared to the benefits, then this discussion could be held. But I don't see that at all right now. We should focus our energy on saving gas.
Laura Esslinger spoke to Andreas Loechel
The interview first appeared on Capital.de.
