Suddenly nuclear power has become a topic again in Germany.

The impending energy bottleneck caused by the economic war between Russia and the West has ensured this.

The argument for nuclear power plants goes like this: Oil and gas imports from Russia could dry up overnight.

In this exceptional situation, we should use nuclear power longer than we have planned so far.

Three plants are still in operation in Germany: the Emsland nuclear power plants in Lower Saxony, Neckarwestheim 2 in Baden-Württemberg and Isar 2 in Bavaria.

They are actually supposed to go off the grid at the end of the year, which would mean that the German nuclear phase-out decided eleven years ago by the Bundestag would be completed as planned - even if the question of final storage is far from settled.

Despite the acute energy crisis, the federal government intends to stick to this schedule. 

The Union, among others, is now campaigning for a “possible extension” of the lifetime of nuclear power plants.

The industry association Kerntechnik Deutschland, in turn, advocates the continued operation of the three nuclear power plants and the reactivation of two more.

Eon, one of the three remaining nuclear power plant operators, belongs to the association.

The other two energy companies that still generate nuclear power in Germany – ENBW and RWE – are not members.

Kerntechnik Deutschland considers the reasons given by the federal government as to why a nuclear turnaround is not possible to be “technically incorrect”.

Contribution to energy supply manageable

It is obvious that it would help Germany's energy supply if the last three nuclear power plants were used longer than currently planned.

This could replace electricity that was previously generated using Russian natural gas.

However, the crucial question is: how much would extending the maturities help us?

And here the answer is quite sobering.

According to calculations by management consultancy Kearney, natural gas consumption in Germany would fall by almost six percent if the three nuclear power plants continued to operate.

That would also be a contribution to securing the energy supply in the current emergency, but a manageable one.

To put this in context: Russian deliveries covered more than half of German natural gas consumption last year.

Nuclear power plants generate electricity.

But the electricity industry in Germany is a sector in which natural gas only plays a secondary role: Around 16 percent of our electricity requirements are covered by gas-fired power plants, significantly less than by renewable energies or coal-fired power plants.

In Germany, natural gas is primarily used for industrial plants and for heating homes and offices.

Around two thirds of the total gas consumption in Germany is used for space and process heating.

Therefore, in many cases, at least in the short and medium term, Russian gas cannot be replaced by German nuclear power.

A gas heater cannot be operated electrically.

And it will take many years to replace millions of gas heaters in German homes with electricity-powered heat pumps.

In older buildings with radiators and poor insulation, heat pumps have so far often not been a suitable replacement.

All this does not mean that there are no arguments for nuclear power as a bridge to the energy transition.

Wind power and photovoltaic systems supply a lot of electricity, but not constantly.

As long as there are no technical possibilities to temporarily store electricity from renewable sources in large quantities, other sources of electricity are needed for the calm periods.

Nuclear power plants could be a climate-friendly solution.

But they are not a panacea against Vladimir Putin.