European Nuclear Energy 2026 (Stockholm) — February 26, 2026 — At European Nuclear Energy 2026 in Stockholm, Anthropocene Institute Director of Data Science Guido Núñez-Mujica presented new analysis expanding on the German Nuclear Phase-Out report, produced in collaboration with WePlanet, which quantifies the emissions, economic, and public-health consequences of Germany’s nuclear shutdown.

Núñez-Mujica asserted that “there are many implications of nuclear power that have consequences beyond energy and electricity that are not currently calculated in the economics of nuclear.” The report finds that Germany’s nuclear phase-out led to 730 million tons of additional CO₂ emissions, higher electricity costs, and nearly 20 thousand premature deaths linked to coal pollution.

“A Serious Strategic Mistake”

To Núñez-Mujica, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s admission that the phase-out was “a serious strategic mistake,” validated longstanding concerns about the energy security and environmental impacts of Germany’s nuclear phase out. He highlighted the Chancellor’s statement to contrast the prevalent narrative that German policymakers did not expect the void left behind by nuclear energy to be filled by coal and gas. However, official communications from 2015, between the German Minister Sigmar Gabriel and the Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven, reveal a clear awareness of the outcome. The communication explicitly stated, “We also strongly believe we cannot simultaneously quit nuclear energy and coal-based power generation.” This indicates that the German government’s subsequent reliance on fossil fuels was a planned outcome and not an unforeseen consequence.

The Consequences of Ideology

Per the German Nuclear Phase-Out report, prior to the initial shutdowns following the 2011 Fukushima accident, nuclear power accounted for 22.6% of Germany's electricity. Today, this figure stands at 0%. Over this period, 12,161 MW of low-carbon generation capacity was removed from the grid, while approximately 30,000 MW of coal generation capacity remains active. Installed capacity alone can be misleading because nuclear plants operate at far higher capacity factors than most other sources. When comparing generation and not just capacity, these numbers become much closer. In 2010, nuclear power generated 133 TWh, which is greater than the 124.47 TWh generated by coal in 2023. This means that had Germany maintained its 2010 nuclear fleet, it could have theoretically achieved a complete coal retirement.

However, a more precise analysis requires examining load and generation on an hourly basis, as energy consumption is dynamic. Even during the most favorable renewable conditions between 2015 and 2024, high-carbon generation remained higher than the low-carbon generation lost through nuclear shutdowns. Núñez-Mujica likened this to a treadmill, where even though new clean energy sources in the form of renewables have been added, they are replacing nuclear and not fossil fuels, leading to the same carbon emissions, in other words, things are moving, but no progress is made. Núñez-Mujica suggested a pivot in priorities, shifting the focus away from the amount of renewables built, but on the resultant carbon emissions.

Furthermore, Núñez-Mujica pointed out that in 2020, Datteln 4—the newest coal generation facility built in Germany—has 3.43 times higher capacity than the three coal plants it replaced. Preserving even one of the last three German nuclear power plants would have provided enough capacity to shut down Datteln 4. The policy choice to run coal instead of keeping low-carbon nuclear operational shows a conscious decision, highlighting the disconnect between climate discourse and the actions of the German government.

Quantifying the Impact

The actual consequences of this policy are staggering. Between 2011 and 2023, the non-preservation of nuclear power resulted in Germany emitting 730 million tons of additional CO2. The continued operation of the nuclear fleet would have displaced this coal-fired generation.

Beyond CO2 emissions, the burning of coal releases air pollutants, leading to severe public health consequences. It is estimated that the prolonged operation of these coal plants caused nearly 19,000 premature deaths, 130,000 serious illnesses, and 10 million cases of minor respiratory illnesses. Coal combustion also releases sulfur oxide, nitrous oxide, particulate matter, and mercury, with four tons of mercury alone generated unnecessarily due to the phaseout. These pollutants are largely ignored in current policy calculations. For perspective, the estimated deaths due to the phaseout are nearly four times higher than the worst-case scenario death toll from the 2005 WHO report on the Chernobyl accident, highlighting the extreme deadliness of this energy policy decision.

Economically, the additional carbon emissions have cost German ratepayers a total of 57 billion Euros in carbon allowances paid to the European Emissions Market. This massive expenditure on unnecessary generation directly refutes the common complaint that nuclear power is too expensive. 

A Looming Capacity Gap

Germany's next energy move involves seeking approval for new gas power capacity. Although this capacity is touted as being hydrogen-compatible, Núñez-Mujica stated that the required hydrogen infrastructure for 12 GW of capacity does not exist, suggesting these facilities will primarily–if not entirely–run on natural gas. With a current coal capacity of 30 GW and a future gas capacity of 12 GW, Germany faces a 18 GW capacity gap. The country’s options are severely limited: continue running coal, restart nuclear, or de-industrialize further.

The Economics of a Nuclear Restart

Should Germany choose to restart its nuclear program, a report by Radiant Energy Group estimates that 12,000 MW of capacity could be restored within a decade, leading to annual savings of 4 to 8 billion euros from shutting down fossil fuel plants. These savings from avoiding paying for carbon alone could fund significant portions of the German budget, including education, healthcare, and urban development.

The benefits of nuclear extend beyond carbon credits and financial savings. Data from Sweden shows that shutting down nuclear power plants increases electricity price volatility due to an over-reliance on weather-dependent energy sources. A stable grid saves money and a diverse energy portfolio that includes nuclear alongside renewables is the best way to achieve stability. The decision to keep nuclear power plants open results in a healthier population, better jobs, less environmental pollution, and more stable, less expensive electricity prices. When all these benefits are quantified, the argument that nuclear energy is "too expensive" is fundamentally undermined.