This article is a brief summary of current information regarding the energy crisis in Germany, following its withdrawal from nuclear energy and the closure of nuclear power plants. Is Germany facing a deepening crisis? Will it impact neighboring economies that are strongly linked to the largest economy in the European Union?
For decades, nuclear power plants were an important component of Germany's energy mix. During the peak development of nuclear energy, over 30 reactors were operational, supplying a significant portion of the country's electricity. This technology was meant to support energy stability and reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Thanks to this, the jewel in Berlin's crown – German industry, including the automotive sector – was to maintain competitiveness and the ability to compete on global markets, which would be impossible without cheap energy.
However, over the years, political priorities and public attitudes towards nuclear power changed, leading to the gradual phasing out of reactors. Or perhaps there was more politics involved than we think, or even, as some theories suggest, connections with Russia, whose raw materials were supposed to enable the shutdown of German reactors? Without making a judgment, we note that such opinions also circulate in Eastern Europe, personified by figures like former German President Gerhard Schröder, who is now openly associated with Russia's Gazprom. It's worth knowing, however, that in Germany, this type of information is not always perceived negatively; part of the political class, and even part of society, does not view cooperation with Russia as fundamentally negative.
The German energy transition was largely intended to be based on gas from Russia, delivered via a series of pipelines. The most important role was played by the Nord Stream 1 pipeline – which ran along the Baltic seabed, making the route independent of other countries, connecting Russia's Baltic coast (near St. Petersburg) with Germany's Baltic coast, near the German-Polish border.
However, when plans for the twin Nord Stream 2 were announced – intended to multiply gas transmission capacity, which obviously correlated in terms of timing with Berlin's withdrawal from nuclear energy – Eastern European countries raised strong objections. This opposition was supported by the United States, which believed that NATO countries should not so openly support NATO's main rival.
On stock
The problem was that for Germany, which was still in NATO, the prospect opened up of becoming a gas hub – meaning distributing Russian gas to other countries as well and making a fortune on the margin. Germany could have joined the gas powers, even though it formally lacked its own raw material. It is now certain that Germany used its influence to get the EU to push for a policy of transitioning to gas – forcing other member states to eliminate other energy sources. It wasn't hard to justify the need to phase out dirty hard coal or lignite, aligning with pro-ecological trends. Nuclear power was also targeted as dangerous. This was meant to prepare demand for gas and force reluctant member states to buy it.
Did it work? Largely yes. The EU definitely started putting more pressure on countries reliant on fossil fuels like coal. Even if countries like Poland, due to strong trade unions, didn't close coal mines, gas lines were still being laid extensively to new housing estates and even into rural areas to switch to gas heating (of course, this process cannot be solely attributed to EU pressure; gas is a low-maintenance and less harmful fuel than coal – however, the entire process shows that from the perspective of Berlin's plans, the energy transition was simply proceeding according to plan).
However, progress regarding nuclear energy was small; it essentially failed to convince other countries to abandon nuclear power – as the country with the largest share of nuclear energy in its energy mix, France, put down a firm veto. Moreover, the expectations of Brussels and Berlin were unrealistic, essentially unfeasible for the French, and Germany needed a strong alliance with France to more easily push its goals within the Union as part of this duo. Berlin backed down, realizing it was too much, and such ambitious plans had to be shelved for the future.
However, the plans for the gasification of the European economy and the broad redistribution of Russian gas by Berlin collapsed – due to the social and political shock in Germany caused by Russia's aggression against Ukraine on February 24, 2022, which occurred essentially immediately after the completion of Nord Stream 2 (though before its launch, for clarity – it was never ultimately launched). Germany, which had spent years building an image as a "moral" empire, had to withdraw from this under pressure from public opinion at home and abroad. Commentators unfavorable to Germany even stated outright that it was German money pumped by Berlin into Russia in exchange for raw materials that enabled Russia to modernize its army and send it against Ukraine. Furthermore, the awareness of Berlin's complete dependence on Russian gas supplies – is thought to have convinced Moscow that this money would not stop flowing, even in extreme situations. This was enough to start a war. This is the view held by, among others, Donald Trump, although his observations are often extreme.
Maintaining the already approved EU policy of transition based on gas – would now mean that this gas had to be bought from somewhere else, and Germany would no longer provide it. The nearest source was Norway, but from the point of view of German political dominance, a more dangerous prospect would have been serving Europe's gas needs through the USA. This would have meant a tightening of relations between Washington and individual EU countries and their increasing independence from Berlin's influence. Eastern European countries in particular were interested in such a solution, as they felt threatened by Russia – so the USA, the leader of NATO, was a natural ally, especially after the invasion of Ukraine. These countries also had (unlike Germany) excellent infrastructure for receiving US gas delivered by tankers, namely modern LNG terminals. Examples include Poland and Lithuania.
However, German influence in the EU was strong enough that Brussels reacted very quickly, and almost immediately after the collapse of the Nord Stream 2 project, which was soon after blown up by Ukrainian saboteurs – it introduced policies restricting gas, particularly in the installation and subsidizing of new appliances, and outlining a schedule for phasing out gas energy. The new favorite of the European Commission – and the means through which the transition was to occur – were heat pumps. It's not hard to guess which country in Europe produces the most of them: it was and still is Germany.
Could it be that the European Commission acted in this area at the behest of Germany? Many commentators claim so; it is the country with the greatest influence in the EU. Let's ask a rhetorical question – would Brussels have introduced a policy of moving away from gas if Germany's billion-euro plan for redistributing Russian gas had succeeded?
However, Germany's problem regarding the government's commitments to society on nuclear power remained – the German government had for years lobbied in the media in favor of abandoning nuclear energy, portraying it as dangerous. The process of shaping public opinion and promoting an anti-nuclear perspective began as early as the 1990s. Left-wing parties, led by the Greens, played a strong role, but so did major parties like the CDU or CSU. At the moment when Germany had planned the shutdown of nuclear power plants – as a credible state, it was expected to follow through. However, it was not foreseen that by this time the geopolitical situation would be more complicated than ever since 1989. The gas that was supposed to replace nuclear power had nowhere to flow from, and energy became extremely expensive; the specter of huge costs and lack of competitiveness loomed over German industry. Despite this – the project of shutting down nuclear power plants was completed, which at the final stage gained opponents and essentially meant triggering an energy crisis in the country. This crisis was set to hit both industry and ordinary citizens hard. It was set to contribute to an economic stagnation or even regression not seen in Germany for decades. Let's be honest – shutting down nuclear power plants at such a moment was madness.
The first decisions to move away from nuclear energy appeared as early as the 1990s, under the influence of ecological movements and the Green Party. A key moment was the year 2011 and the Fukushima disaster in Japan. Chancellor Angela Merkel, despite previously being relatively favorable to nuclear energy, announced a radical program for the accelerated shutdown of reactors. Germany decided to completely phase out nuclear power, treating safety and environmental risk as a priority – according to government communications. Here and there, concerns were raised about becoming too dependent on Russian supplies, but Russia in the late 1990s and later seemed like a country of perpetual poverty, crisis, and a technologically obsolete army. Few took seriously the possibility of a resurgence of the Russian threat – although such voices were heard in Eastern European countries, including Poland and Romania.
Ultimately, the last German nuclear power plants ended operation in 2023, making Germany one of the few large industrialized countries to completely renounce nuclear energy.
What next? It's hard to believe – Germany had to start importing electricity from France. Let us recall, the vast majority of electricity generated on the banks of the Seine is... nuclear energy. Berlin shut down nuclear power plants – and started importing nuclear energy from France. Currently, in 2025/2026 – electricity costs in France are half those in Germany.
The shutdown of nuclear power plants was part of the broader "Energiewende" plan, an energy transition based on renewable energy sources — wind, solar, and biomass, for the period when gas was no longer an option. Germany significantly increased its production of energy from renewables – Germany became a world leader in this field. At the same time, programs supporting energy storage and grid development are being implemented. But in such strong lobbying, driven by politicians, behind whom sometimes stood unclear connections with various foundations and the renewables business itself – was attention paid to a real scientific approach to the stability of renewables? Or were all polemical positions blocked in the name of political correctness?
The truth is that Germany has outdated, backward energy infrastructure, unmodernized for many years due to the so-called debt brake policy. In this noble goal of climate protection – few raised the real argument: German energy infrastructure is not suitable for such a large amount of unpredictable renewable energy. Overloading the system with a huge amount of PV energy on some days ends in blackouts, or they are prevented – by disconnecting many German photovoltaic farms from the power grid. However, it's not that simple; the state for years encouraged investment in such farms and signed contracts with investors to purchase the energy. It cannot simply disconnect them from the grid in the months when these investors produce the most energy. Hence – a new financial problem emerged – Berlin and the federal states together are already paying several billion Euros per year in compensation to the owners of photovoltaic farms for not honoring energy purchase agreements. One might risk the thesis that, at least for now, Germany has too much renewable energy for the capabilities of its outdated infrastructure.
The state – striving at all costs in its fiscal policy to avoid debt, which was Germany's hallmark for years – led to a situation where it failed to keep pace with the development of photovoltaics in the country and did not modernize the energy sector. This doesn't sound like well-run energy policy, especially since Germany itself triggered such a booming development of the PV network (by subsidizing it with huge sums). Today it is clear that in all these decisions, the most important factor was blindly understood ideology; all other rational aspects had to give way to actions for the climate. Criticism was not welcome nor needed by anyone. Today, modernizing the German energy sector requires not only billions of €, which Germany might eventually find over time (as Chancellor Merz is currently considering removing the debt brake policy). This doesn't solve the problem – because Germany is so far behind in this aspect that it needs not only money to fix the problem – but many years.
The reactor shutdowns have sparked much discussion. Critics point out that the lack of a stable source of emission-free energy led to an increased share of fossil fuels, especially coal, which impacted CO₂ emissions. The decisions therefore proved counterproductive, at least temporarily. Concerns about energy security have also emerged, especially in the context of the raw material crisis after 2022.
Proponents, on the other hand, emphasize safety issues, independence from nuclear technology, and the consistent implementation of the ecological transition. Only, what good is independence from one's own nuclear technology when Germany has become dependent on French nuclear technology?
Available data indicates that the German energy system generated 436 TWh of energy in 2023 (data from the Fraunhofer Institute). Back in 2016, it generated 554 TWh. That's a drop of over 21% in 7 years.
Today, in any well-managed economy, electricity consumption is growing; consumers need more and more of it, cooking is no longer done on gas but on induction hobs, more and more buildings have electric heating, the German trend is heating with heat pumps, the government subsidizes electric cars – under these conditions, the German system lost 21% of its capacity in 7 years, that's a drop of 118 TWh, which is more than the entire output of the wealthy Netherlands.
It is worth adding that in the meantime, a technological revolution related to AI has emerged globally. Innovative will be those countries that create first-class systems and adapt them to their areas of life. However, this is an enormously energy-intensive field, requiring huge energy reserves. Germany, at the time of planning the reactor shutdowns, couldn't have known this, but it has positioned itself at a disadvantage at the start of this huge race.
✅ Finally, alarming numbers: in 1992, unified Germany generated 498 TWh of electrical energy. Today (data for 2023, Fraunhofer Institute) it generates 436 TWh, meaning today it is capable of generating only 87% of the figure from 1992. After so many years of development, let's recall where the world was and at what level of development in the early 1990s. Is it time to end this madness?
Some commentators also point to the socio-political consequences of the energy crisis in Germany. Rising energy prices have pushed some sectors of the economy, including the automotive industry, to the brink of bankruptcy. There isn't mass unemployment yet, but citizens have started to fear for their jobs, which is a new phenomenon. There are also layoffs, and many foreign companies are closing their branches in Germany. Worse still, there are also German companies – with German capital – that are moving production from Germany to cheaper countries. The average German feels a very large increase in electricity and heating bills; higher energy costs contribute to price hikes and inflation, including for food products. It's the worst it has been in years; taxes and levies are rising. This is fuel for more radical parties and the breakdown of the old consensus based on the rule of centrist parties. Support is growing for the AfD, which offers abandoning the climate "utopia" and returning to common sense – a party that has long opposed this path.
Although the crisis in Germany could represent an opportunity for foreign companies, most experts assess that this is not a desirable situation in Europe and will not have a positive impact on the EU's economic development. Statistics show that in the past, for other countries to achieve good economic growth rates – economic growth in Germany had to be at least 2-2.5%. That's not much, but it meant that German industry and demand were functioning. Below this threshold, if it lasts for a longer time – German industry begins to slow down and stops creating jobs in neighboring countries, because it should be remembered that the supply chain of German manufacturers includes suppliers of various components from other European countries – like Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, or Slovenia. Troubles for German factories mean fewer orders for them. And the troubles of German consumers and their thinner wallets – mean reduced demand, both for local and imported goods, creating a vicious circle.
An example of an economy that will be hit hardest by the problems of German industry is the Czech Republic, which is essentially dependent on the German economy. Czech industry is closely tied to demand in Germany. Poland was in a similar situation in the past, but the history of successive economic slowdowns shows that Poland is partially decoupling from fluctuations in the German economy (largely thanks to a strong domestic market), but it is still Warsaw's most important trading partner, and losses will be felt sooner or later. Italian, Slovenian, and Hungarian companies will also be in a bad situation.
The current protectionist tariff policy of the USA, which was always a receptive market for high-quality German goods, will not improve this situation. Especially since it ultimately hit the automotive sector.
The energy transition in Germany is still ongoing; it is not a closed topic, and it certainly cannot remain in its current form – the average German does not accept it. In reality, its foundations have collapsed and need to be rebuilt – and the future is supposed to be based on renewable energy sources, hydrogen, and advanced storage technologies. Although nuclear power plants have (probably) become history, this topic still stirs emotions — some experts call for a reconsideration of nuclear power, especially in the context of new technologies such as SMRs (small modular reactors). For now, however, German policy remains clear — the energy of the future is to come from renewables.
___
Check out Nordic Tec brand products:
Mixing valves, three-way, four-way - what exactly are they?
How to choose a pellet stove for your home?
Check valve in the central heating system
Liquid thermal media - water, glycol? What to use in a heating system?
Gas boiler servicing - is it necessary?
What gas boiler for a 150m² house? We explain the required boiler power in kW.
Leave a comment