Germany is confronting an uncomfortable reality: the possibility of a return to coal power. The nation's energy crisis, exacerbated by reduced Russian gas supplies, has forced a debate on whether to delay the phase-out of coal-fired plants. This decision carries profound implications for Europe's climate goals and energy security.
The data point to a stark tension. Germany's renewable energy capacity has grown, but intermittency remains a challenge. As of last month, renewables accounted for 48% of electricity generation, yet gas provided 12% and coal 28%. The loss of Russian gas has left a gap that coal is being called upon to fill. Environmental groups warn that reactivating coal plants would increase carbon emissions by up to 30 million tonnes per year, a significant blow to Germany's 2030 climate targets.
Chancellor Olaf Scholz's government is split. The Green Party, part of the ruling coalition, opposes any extension of coal, while the Free Democrats argue for pragmatism. The debate centres on a simple physics problem: how to maintain grid stability without sufficient baseload power. Coal, for all its drawbacks, offers dispatchable energy that wind and solar cannot yet guarantee.
Meanwhile, the UK is charting a different course. The country has positioned nuclear power as a central pillar of its energy strategy. With Hinkley Point C under construction and Sizewell C approved, the UK is investing in large-scale fission. But the real leadership lies in small modular reactors (SMRs). Rolls-Royce has received regulatory approval for its SMR design, which could be deployed by 2030. The UK government's Energy Security Strategy aims for 24 GW of nuclear by 2050, a target that would cover 25% of projected electricity demand.
Nuclear energy's advantages are clear: high capacity factor, low carbon emissions, and long operational life. However, critics point to cost overruns and waste management issues. Hinkley Point C's price tag has ballooned to £25 billion, a figure that makes some economists wince. Yet the levelised cost of energy for nuclear is competitive with offshore wind when factoring in system costs like backup generation and grid infrastructure.
The contrast between Germany and the UK illustrates a fundamental choice. Germany's Energiewende (energy transition) prioritised renewables and decommissioned nuclear plants early, leaving it reliant on gas. Now that gas supplies are constrained, coal becomes the stopgap. The UK, while also expanding renewables, has maintained a nuclear fleet and is investing in next-generation reactors. This diversity may prove resilient.
From a biosphere perspective, the stakes could not be higher. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns that global emissions must peak by 2025 to limit warming to 1.5°C. Every tonne of coal burned pushes that boundary. Germany's decision will have ripple effects across Europe: if the EU's largest economy reverts to coal, it could weaken the bloc's emissions trading system and set a precedent for other nations.
Technological solutions exist. Energy storage, grid interconnections, and demand-side management can all reduce the need for coal. Germany is investing in hydrogen electrolysis and battery storage, but these technologies are not yet scalable enough to replace baseload power this winter. The immediate crisis demands quick fixes; the long-term crisis demands systemic change.
As a scientist, I see a world where our choices are constrained by physics and urgency. The UK's nuclear bet offers a path to low-carbon baseload power, but it requires political will and financial commitment. Germany's coal debate is a reminder that the energy transition is not a smooth linear process. It is a series of trade-offs, each with its own carbon cost.
The data are clear: we cannot afford to delay decarbonisation. Whether through nuclear, renewables, or a mix, the clock is ticking. Germany's decision will be a test of whether economic necessity or climate ambition prevails. The UK's move shows that nuclear can be part of the answer, but only if we act with the speed and scale that the crisis demands.
