40 Years Since Chernobyl: A Phase-Out of Nuclear Power Could Have Been Implemented as Early as 1987
In August 1986, researchers concluded that phasing out nuclear power could be achieved in the near future. Photo: IÖW
On April 26, 1986, Reactor Unit 4 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant exploded. The disaster marked a turning point in the German and international nuclear debate. Just a few months later, in August 1986, the Institute for Ecological Economy Research (IÖW) and the Öko-Institut presented a report that systematically examined the possibilities of phasing out nuclear energy. Forty years later, we ask our former IÖW colleagues Prof. Dr. Martin Jänicke, Prof. Dr. Sabine Spelthahn, and PD Dr. Lutz Mez: What does this report signify today?
When did you first hear about Chernobyl, and how did the disaster change things for you?
Martin Jänicke: It was a shocking experience for me, especially since there was radioactive fallout from the accident in Germany. But it was also clear that this gave the nuclear debate a whole new dimension.
Sabine Spelthahn: I was in Berlin at the time of the disaster and first heard that radioactivity had been detected in Sweden. The staff at a nuclear power plant had received an alert that radioactivity had been detected. They assumed it came from their plant and later discovered that it came from outside. The cloud reached Berlin a little later, and fortunately it wasn’t raining. Like everyone else, I stopped eating fruit, salad, and dairy products.
Lutz Mez: On the evening of April 28, I heard on the car radio that elevated radiation levels had been measured at the Forsmark nuclear power plant in Sweden, but that no incident could be found there. The next morning I woke up and heard an interview on the radio with Prof. Jens Scheer, who explained why major accidents can occur in pressurized water reactors, which existed in the USSR. After breakfast, I drove to the Freie Universität in Dahlem and was already being awaited by TV crews who wanted a statement from me regarding the damaged reactor in Ukraine.
Would phasing out nuclear power have been realistic as early as the 1980s?
Lutz Mez: Yes, a rapid phase-out of nuclear energy would have been technically feasible as early as mid-1987. However, the 1990 agreement, which set the phase-out for the end of 2022, was implemented with delays by the operators of the nuclear power plants (NPPs). The Christian Democratic Union–Free Democratic Party coalition then watered down the nuclear phase-out in 2010. Following the disaster in Fukushima in 2011, the eight oldest nuclear power plants were finally shut down immediately, and a phased phase-out by the end of 2022 was enshrined in the Atomic Energy Act for the remaining reactors.
Sabine Spelthahn: The nuclear power lobby was still very strong when we published the report. It took a second major catastrophe – the Fukushima disaster – to change public and political opinion.
How did the report come about, and what were the reactions after it was published?
Martin Jänicke: The commission of the report was a swift response by the federal government to the Chernobyl disaster. It addressed the question many were asking at the time: Is it possible to phase out nuclear energy, perhaps in the short term? We had only a few months to complete it; the deadline was the end of August 1986. I remember boarding the train in Freiburg with the printed report to deliver it to Bonn on time. When we published the study, I received a tip that the established Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (RWI) would be presenting its phase-out report at the Federal Press Conference. We tagged along and also presented our report there. The major newspapers in the Federal Republic – FAZ, WELT, BILD, Süddeutsche Zeitung – then ran it as their lead story.
Lutz Mez: The topic of the nuclear phase-out was on the front pages of the daily press for a week. But there were already anti-nuclear activists in all political parties beforehand, not just among the Greens. The critics of nuclear power were now being heard, and even within the labor unions, resolutions were being drafted calling for a nuclear phase-out in Germany.
How do you view the current debate over a return to nuclear power?
Martin Jänicke: Unless the costs are significantly lower and construction times significantly shorter than for renewables, I don’t see much of a future for it. In autocracies like China and Russia, however, the situation is somewhat different. The resurgent global debate on nuclear power thrives on the suppression of the unresolved issue of waste disposal. Much like the new “fossilism” thrives on the suppression of the climate issue.
Lutz Mez: As long as nuclear weapons exist, the pro-nuclear lobby will repeatedly try to promote the supposed benefits of civilian nuclear power to the public. Because the military and civilian uses of nuclear energy are Siamese twins – inseparably linked. The disadvantages of nuclear power are glossed over, while reactor types such as Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are touted. So far, SMRs exist only on paper – though in Russia, two 35-megawatt ship-based reactors have been operating as SMRs since 2019. In China, a 100-megawatt nuclear power plant is scheduled to go online in 2026.
Sabine Spelthahn: I am appalled that a return to nuclear power is being discussed both globally and in Germany. I consider the idea of generating energy from nuclear fusion to be completely counterproductive. Aside from that, nuclear fusion also releases radioactivity. Furthermore, renewable energy is in any case more cost-effective than energy from nuclear fusion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
About the Report
The report “Phasing out nuclear energy: a qualitative and where possible quantitative assessment of short- and long-term impacts” commissioned by the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs examined the short- and long-term consequences of the Federal Republic of Germany phasing out nuclear energy. The report was prompted by the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, which lent new urgency to the energy policy debate. The experts conclude that a short-term phase-out within one year is technically feasible. Existing excess capacity in the power grid would ensure sufficient reserves. More problematic in the short term is the increase in nitrogen oxide and CO₂ emissions resulting from the increased use of fossil fuel power plants. The additional economic costs are deemed manageable, as most existing calculations are based on inflated assumptions – for example, regarding the service life and disposal costs of nuclear power plants. A phase-out by the early 1990s appears even less problematic from a technical standpoint.
Download report (DE)
About the authors of the study
IÖW co-founder Prof. Dr. Martin Jänicke was the principal investigator of the study. From 1986 to 2007, this nationally and internationally sought-after policy advisor headed the Research Center for Environmental Policy at Freie Universität Berlin, which is celebrating its 40th anniversary this year – now under the name Research Center for Sustainability.
PD Dr. Lutz Mez was the lead author of Chapter III, “Power Plant Structure and Environmental Impact,” and the author of Appendix 2, “Priority for Nuclear Energy or Lignite? Changes in Power Plant Structure and Total Electricity Generation at RWE.” The expert on nuclear power has been engaged in international comparative environmental and energy policy since 1974. He is a co-founder of the Research Center for Environmental Policy, where he served as executive director until April 2010. In 2016, he was awarded the Federal Cross of Merit for his contributions to the energy transition and the development of a sustainable energy policy.
Prof. Dr. Sabine Spelthahn was co-author of Chapter II, “The Phase-out of Nuclear Energy in Light of Current Scenarios and Statements,” and of Appendix 1 (summaries of the studies that served as secondary analysis). She most recently served as a professor in the fields of environmental and sustainability management, rhetoric, conflict management, and mediation at the HTW Berlin – University of Applied Sciences, where she continues to teach as a lecturer today.
Other authors of the study were Frank Springmann, Antje Theißen, and Dr. Otto Ullrich from the IÖW, as well as Jürgen Leuchtner and Dieter Seifried from the Öko-Institut.
