Politicians from the SPD and the Greens continue to think that extending the service life of three nuclear power plants is bad, but they no longer reject it outright.

The Bavarian SPD chairman Florian von Brunn told Bayerischer Rundfunk on Sunday when asked whether he was in favor of an extension of the term: "No, at the moment".

With a view to the cross-party approval for a lifetime extension by "stretching operation" in the Munich city government, Brunn indicated flexibility: "I'm skeptical about nuclear power, but I'm open to a neutral assessment." In Bavaria is one of the three nuclear power plants (Isar 2), the other two in Lower Saxony (Emsland) and Baden-Württemberg (Neckarwestheim 2).

They still produce about six percent of the electricity output in Germany and, according to the phase-out of nuclear power, should start on December 31.

The head of the Munich public utility, Florian Bieberbach, told Bayerischer Rundfunk: "Due to the lack of energy, the Munich public utility considers the examination of a 'stretching operation' for the Isar 2 nuclear power plant to be appropriate." A week ago, Bieberbach had a conversation with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sunday newspaper said: "Continued operation would not make a big difference for Munich's energy supply.

After all, we don't have the supply problems with electricity, but in the heating market.

The nuclear power plant doesn’t help us much there.”

Stress test does not identify a need

Federal Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock (Greens) has also left the approval for an extension of the term open.

Based on the facts that are currently known to her, she does not think that the continued operation of the German nuclear power plants is "the right step," she told the broadcaster Bild-TV.

In view of the Russian war against Ukraine and the looming energy crisis, the challenge is not the supply of electricity, but of gas.

"And that's why nuclear power is not the answer." With a view to a second "stress test" ordered by Economics Minister Robert Habeck (Greens) to check whether nuclear power plants could cushion a precarious power supply, Baerbock also said: "We are now in an emergency situation where we look at everything again." And: "In such difficult decision-making processes, it is always important

When drawing conclusions, one should not allow oneself to be guided by "massive interests", said Baerbock.

The operators of the three nuclear power plants had hitherto resisted an extension of the service life, primarily because of unpredictable costs.

Environmental protection associations and representatives of renewable energies also vehemently reject a lifetime extension.

The first "stress test" at the beginning of the year did not identify any urgent need for the continued use of the nuclear power plants.

The effort far outweighs the benefit, Habeck had subsequently always warded off calls for an extension of the service life.

His point of view is based on the fact that only a small part of the gas power generation, which has been reduced anyway due to the sharply rising costs, can be replaced by nuclear power plants.

This is mainly due to the fact that gas generation is used in combined heat and power generation.

It is also argued that although nuclear power plants are capable of base load, they cannot be started up and shut down as quickly as gas-fired power plants in order to be able to react flexibly to fluctuating electricity requirements.