Let me begin with a request: Try for a moment to open yourself up and change your perspective. Some questions you don’t ask yourself as a politician or as an expert, but as a mother.

Will my children one day live in a country where energy is reliably available? Where electricity remains affordable? Where industry, research, and innovation continue to create opportunities? Or in a country that jeopardizes its future because it loses the courage to make necessary decisions? This isn’t just about energy supply, but also about securing jobs, preserving research, education, and technical expertise, and ensuring economic opportunities for future generations.
These questions aren’t abstract for me. They’re personal. And they’re the reason I’ve worked in nuclear technology for more than twenty years.

Today I head the industry association Kerntechnik Deutschland eV and the German Nuclear Society eV

I’m not an engineer, a reactor operator, or a nuclear physicist. But I know this field. I’ve worked with scientists, engineers, and specialists for two decades, reading studies, discussing technical concepts, and translating them into understandable language. I don’t talk past experts, but with them.
Perhaps that’s why I’m particularly disturbed by the way nuclear energy is discussed in Germany. Too often, it’s not about facts, but about personalities. Not about arguments, but about denigration. Precisely because it concerns the future of our country, this is disastrous. What we need is not posturing, moralizing rhetoric, or ideological knee-jerk reactions. What we need is, finally, a sober, fact-based debate.

While Germany long believed it had definitively closed the book on nuclear energy, the world around us has moved on. Europe is changing. EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen recently described the move away from nuclear power as a “strategic mistake” and presented measures to correct it. Chancellor Friedrich Merz initially stated that he shared this assessment, only to claim shortly afterward that Germany’s nuclear phase-out was “irreversible” because previous governments had decided on it.

That may be politically convenient, but factually it’s simply wrong. In a democracy, hardly anything is irreversible. Laws can be changed. That is precisely the core of parliamentary politics. Anyone who claims otherwise doesn’t want to have a debate, but rather to end it. But the debate is already underway. Among our neighbors in Europe and increasingly in Germany as well.

In many European countries, there is now a very pragmatic discussion about what a secure, climate-friendly, and affordable energy supply can look like. Poland is building its first fleet of nuclear power plants. Sweden is planning additional reactors. Great Britain is investing in new plants as well as small modular reactors. France is extending the operating lives of existing plants and building new capacity. Belgium has reversed its decision to phase out nuclear power. The Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Romania, Slovenia, and Bulgaria are also investing. Even countries like Denmark, Italy, and Switzerland are openly re-examining the use of nuclear energy. In short, Germany and Austria are increasingly isolated in their categorical rejection.
Many countries face the same challenges as we do: rising energy prices, geopolitical uncertainties, and the need to drastically reduce CO₂ emissions. Nuclear energy fulfills three characteristics that are crucial for modern energy systems: it is low in CO₂ emissions, it reliably provides electricity and thus ensures the urgently needed baseload power supply, and it can enable stable electricity prices in the long term.

Renewable energies are and will remain a central component of the energy transition. However, their increasing share also makes it clear that an energy system relying solely on weather-dependent energy sources places enormous demands on grids, storage facilities, and backup capacities. Many European countries are drawing a pragmatic conclusion from this: they are combining renewable energies with nuclear power.

Another aspect is gaining increasing importance these days: the resilience of our energy system. The massive expansion of wind and solar energy requires large quantities of metals and specialized materials, the production of which is currently heavily concentrated in just a few countries. Surprisingly little is said about this in Germany, even though these dependencies significantly influence the resilience of our energy system. Nuclear energy has a stabilizing effect here. It requires comparatively few raw materials and provides a continuous energy supply. In addition, the fuel has a high energy density. Uranium can be reliably sourced worldwide and stored for years. Strategic reserves are possible, a very important factor in a geopolitically uncertain world.

Currently, so-called Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are receiving a great deal of international attention. These reactors are significantly smaller than conventional nuclear power plants and are largely prefabricated industrially. This enables standardized manufacturing, shorter construction times, and lower costs per plant.
SMRs can not only generate electricity but also provide heat for industrial processes and hydrogen, which represents a crucial advantage for an industrialized country like Germany.

In addition, there is an industrial policy point that is unfortunately too rarely addressed in the German debate. Germany continues to possess considerable expertise in nuclear technology, from centrifuge manufacturing and uranium enrichment to fuel element production, highly specialized component manufacturing, and measurement and control technology. This expertise is used worldwide; German technology is in demand internationally. German companies remain successful suppliers for international reactor programs. And rightly so! For decades, our plants were among the most efficient in the world. We were multiple world champions in electricity production and are true champions in our field. Germany is also considered an international role model when it comes to safety. This knowledge and experience represent an industrial treasure that must not simply disappear but should be utilized and further developed.

Universities and research institutions are also successfully integrated into international programs and contribute to the development of nuclear technologies in Europe and the rest of the world. In other words, Germany still possesses a large part of the industrial value chain required for modern nuclear technologies. However, this expertise will not be retained automatically.

Because if Germany continues to insist on its phase-out decision against its better judgment, there is a risk that these competencies will also be gradually lost. Once the root is cut, the plant above it also dies. Our economy benefits even if there is no immediate political re-entry into nuclear power, as a supplier for international reactor programs.

Therefore, Germany now needs a comprehensive approach. A future-oriented energy and technology policy should not view nuclear energy in a one-dimensional way, but rather pursue a two-pronged strategy: the development and use of SMRs in the near future and, in the long term, the promotion of nuclear fusion. Both technologies must be top priorities and supported equally consistently so that they become available as quickly as possible.
Moreover, both technologies are based on the same scientific foundation and complement each other perfectly. SMRs could contribute to the energy supply as early as the 2030s. Nuclear fusion, on the other hand, is not expected to be commercially available until after 2040. Today’s nuclear engineering expertise secures the industrialization of fusion tomorrow.

Before Germany continues this debate, it’s worth taking a look at some particularly persistent misconceptions. Uranium is by no means only available in Russia. Large deposits exist in places like Canada and Australia, and further significant reserves can be found in Kazakhstan, Africa, and South America.

When it comes to the issue of nuclear waste repositories, it’s also worthwhile to look beyond Germany’s borders. The fact that Germany doesn’t yet operate a repository is largely due to political decisions. Technically, safe solutions have long been available, and site selection processes have been successfully completed. Finland is leading the way and will commission its repository this year.
Sites have been selected in France, Switzerland, and Sweden, and there are very good prospects for the implementation of repositories in these countries.

The financing of nuclear waste disposal in Germany is also regulated. With the Fund for Financing Nuclear Waste Disposal (KENFO), established in 2017, the operators of German nuclear power plants have paid approximately €24 billion into a federal public foundation. This fund finances interim and final storage, and not, as is often claimed, the general public. Moreover, in some cases, a final repository of this size would not even be necessary. Spent fuel elements are not waste, but a valuable raw material that could be reused in the near future, if desired.

Of course, nuclear energy cannot solve all the world’s problems. No technology can. There is simply no such thing as a “jack-of-all-trades.” The crucial question, however, is: Can we afford to completely rule out a functioning, low-CO₂, and baseload-capable technology? Most of the European countries around us answer this question with a clear “yes to nuclear energy.”

Germany should at least have the courage to face this issue honestly. Not ideologically, but pragmatically. Because energy policy determines far more than electricity prices. It determines industrial value creation, security of supply, and the economic future of our country. Europe has begun to reassess this reality. Germany should no longer avoid this debate.

And perhaps it is also worth considering this question from the perspective of a mother who wants her children to grow up in a country that shapes its future and does not jeopardize it completely unnecessarily.