Case study introduction | Leitfäden, Projektarbeiten und Recherchen Wirtschaftswissenschaften

Assignment: Case Study on “The Nuclear Phase-Out in Germany”

WS2025/2026 BA Introduction to Intercultural Communication

Prof. Dr. Xun Luo

„Group“: Yekaterina Pershina

This case study examines Germany’s nuclear phase-out, exploring its historical and political background as well as the

ongoing conflicts and consequences.

The use of nuclear power in Germany began in the 1950s and was widely accepted at first. However, the anti-nuclear

movement of the 1970s and the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 changed public opinion, which also moved this topic to the

political stage.

In 2000, the Green-Social Democratic government made the first major agreement, which planned the nuclear phase-

out by 2021, but it was overturned by the extended plans for the usage of nuclear energy in 2010.

In 2011, the Fukushima nuclear disaster happened. This caused a quick decision from the German parliament to pass a

law that shut down eight reactors in the same year and planned to end the usage by 2022. In April 2023, the last three

nuclear reactors were shut down. After that, Germany put its focus on safe and clean energy resources.

While Germany focuses on renewable and green energy, other countries are taking a diﬀerent path.

Let’s take a look at France: France gets about 64.8% of its electricity from nuclear power, which is the highest share in

the world.

Also, President Macron has announced plans to build up to 14 new reactors.

Looking at other countries, we can see for example that:

The United States mainly extends the operating lives of its running 94 reactors and sees growing interest from big tech

companies like Microsoft, which want to power their AI data centers with nuclear energy.

China has the world’s most ambitious nuclear construction program, with 28 to 30 reactors currently being built.

Countries like the United Kingdom, Poland, and the Czech Republic want EU subsidies for nuclear as a low-emission

technology.

Interestingly, France often depends on electricity imports from Germany in the winter when its own reactors have

problems.

The topic in general has a very divided range of opinions in politics but also in society, which contributed to tension in

diﬀerent areas.

One of the questions that comes up is: what about climate protection? Although nuclear power has low CO₂ emissions,

it is risky. What is the right choice? And what negative consequences come with further usage? Maybe high costs of

maintenance and hidden costs for taxpayers?

Critics say nuclear power has hidden costs. For example, there is no real insurance for a very big, catastrophic

accident. Also, taxpayers pay for the waste disposal. At the same time, wind and solar power are now cheaper (2–8

cents per kWh) than new nuclear power (14–19 cents per kWh).

Let’s take a look at what happened in the energy sector: In the energy sector, big changes happened. Nuclear power's

share fell from 27.7% (2003) to only 1.4% (2023). In 2024, renewable energy had a record share of 63% of Germany's

electricity. To replace nuclear power, Germany used more coal. It also built more flexible gas plants and storage.

If we look at the eﬀect on society, we see that in society, safety was a big concern after Fukushima, as mentioned.

Scientists said in 2012 that a big nuclear accident could happen somewhere in the world every 10 to 20 years. People

also talked about responsibility to future generations because nuclear waste must be stored safely for over a million

years. Germany is still searching for a final storage place. This search will continue at least till 2050. Public opinion

changed over time. After Fukushima, 80% of people supported the phase-out. But in April 2023, during the energy

crisis, 59% were against shutting down the last plants at that time.

Unvollständige Textvorschau

Nur auf Docsity: Lade Case study introduction und mehr Leitfäden, Projektarbeiten und Recherchen als PDF für Wirtschaftswissenschaften herunter!

Assignment: Case Study on “The Nuclear Phase-Out in Germany”

WS2025/2026 BA Introduction to Intercultural Communication Prof. Dr. Xun Luo „Group“: Yekaterina Pershina This case study examines Germany’s nuclear phase-out, exploring its historical and political background as well as the ongoing conflicts and consequences. The use of nuclear power in Germany began in the 1950s and was widely accepted at first. However, the anti-nuclear movement of the 1970s and the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 changed public opinion, which also moved this topic to the political stage. In 2000, the Green-Social Democratic government made the first major agreement, which planned the nuclear phase- out by 2021, but it was overturned by the extended plans for the usage of nuclear energy in 2010. In 2011, the Fukushima nuclear disaster happened. This caused a quick decision from the German parliament to pass a law that shut down eight reactors in the same year and planned to end the usage by 2022. In April 2023, the last three nuclear reactors were shut down. After that, Germany put its focus on safe and clean energy resources. While Germany focuses on renewable and green energy, other countries are taking a different path. Let’s take a look at France: France gets about 64.8% of its electricity from nuclear power, which is the highest share in the world. Also, President Macron has announced plans to build up to 14 new reactors. Looking at other countries, we can see for example that: The United States mainly extends the operating lives of its running 94 reactors and sees growing interest from big tech companies like Microsoft, which want to power their AI data centers with nuclear energy. China has the world’s most ambitious nuclear construction program, with 28 to 30 reactors currently being built. Countries like the United Kingdom, Poland, and the Czech Republic want EU subsidies for nuclear as a low-emission technology. Interestingly, France often depends on electricity imports from Germany in the winter when its own reactors have problems. The topic in general has a very divided range of opinions in politics but also in society, which contributed to tension in different areas. One of the questions that comes up is: what about climate protection? Although nuclear power has low CO₂ emissions, it is risky. What is the right choice? And what negative consequences come with further usage? Maybe high costs of maintenance and hidden costs for taxpayers? Critics say nuclear power has hidden costs. For example, there is no real insurance for a very big, catastrophic accident. Also, taxpayers pay for the waste disposal. At the same time, wind and solar power are now cheaper (2– cents per kWh) than new nuclear power (14–19 cents per kWh). Let’s take a look at what happened in the energy sector: In the energy sector, big changes happened. Nuclear power's share fell from 27.7% (2003) to only 1.4% (2023). In 2024, renewable energy had a record share of 63% of Germany's electricity. To replace nuclear power, Germany used more coal. It also built more flexible gas plants and storage. If we look at the effect on society, we see that in society, safety was a big concern after Fukushima, as mentioned. Scientists said in 2012 that a big nuclear accident could happen somewhere in the world every 10 to 20 years. People also talked about responsibility to future generations because nuclear waste must be stored safely for over a million years. Germany is still searching for a final storage place. This search will continue at least till 2050. Public opinion changed over time. After Fukushima, 80% of people supported the phase-out. But in April 2023, during the energy crisis, 59% were against shutting down the last plants at that time.

After all that, there is a clear conclusion to make: First, in market economies, new nuclear projects often have extreme cost overruns and take decades longer than planned. Wind and solar power are now the cheapest energy sources. Relying too much on one technology, like France does with nuclear power, can be a risk for energy security. And last but not least: no matter what a country chooses, the problem of nuclear waste is still not solved anywhere in the world. Germany shows us how change is possible toward a more flexible and efficient energy system, but it needs clear vision, goals, values and compromises. Additionally, it should be noted that the debate around renewable energy and energy-related issues concerning global independence continues. However, this debate is also deeply tied to the different political parties, it would take a long time to come to a common agreement on these matters. (783 words) Study Questions: 1. Compare Germany and France's energy strategies. Which one do you personally think has a better future? Why?

I prefer Germany's strategy for the future. Germany's focus is on renewable energy like wind and solar power, which are now the cheapest energy sources. France's strategy of relying on nuclear power has problems. Their reactors are old and often break down, forcing them to buy electricity from other countries. Building new nuclear plants is extremely expensive and takes decades. 2. How did Germany’s decision to stop using nuclear energy shift from just avoiding danger (like a nuclear accident) to actively trying to build something positive like renewable energy sources?
Germany decided to stop using nuclear power because people were deeply concerned about their future and did not feel secure enough. They saw the horrific accident that happened in Fukushima, so the German parliament took matters into its own hands in order not to expose its population to such a danger. But from that fear came something positive. Faced with the challenge of replacing a major source of power, the strategy evolved into a proactive "doing good" initiative like „the Energiewende“ (energy transition) This wasn't just about avoiding danger anymore, it was about actively creating a cleaner, safer, and more modern way of making energy for the future. 3. Many politicians, especially from right-wing parties, say nuclear energy is much cheaper and promises lower prices for electricity. Is this true, when we look at the hidden costs?
No, the claim that nuclear energy is much cheaper and leads to lower electricity prices is not completely true when we look at the hidden costs. Building new nuclear plants is extremely expensive. In France, the cost for a new reactor (Flamanville-3) exploded from 3.3 billion to over 13 billion Euros. Also taxpayers, not the power companies, usually pay for the long-term storage and management of nuclear waste, which are huge costs for future generations. And again there is no full insurance for a major nuclear accident. A big disaster could cost up from 200 billion US Dollars, a cost that would fall on society. (Ongoing costs for Fukushima: over 600 billion US Dollars)

Case study introduction, Leitfäden, Projektarbeiten und Recherchen von Wirtschaftswissenschaften

Zugehörige Dokumente

Unvollständige Textvorschau

Nur auf Docsity: Lade Case study introduction und mehr Leitfäden, Projektarbeiten und Recherchen als PDF für Wirtschaftswissenschaften herunter!

Assignment: Case Study on “The Nuclear Phase-Out in Germany”