Germany’s most powerful energy politician over the years, Jürgen Trittin, calls the European Commission President’s statement that there is a “renaissance of nuclear power” a “lie”.

His Social Democratic successor, Federal Environment Minister Carsten Schneider, flatly rejects funding for the next generation of nuclear power plants, the SMR (Small Modular Reactor). Tax money is too good for him for that. What’s too bad for the SPD man is the recipe from the Americans, Russians and Chinese. Schneider seems to know better.

In the video: Von der Leyen clears up an “original green error”.

Greens want to murder nuclear power again

The Green Party Katrin Göring-Eckardt does not mention like von der Leyen, the exit from nuclear power was a “strategic mistake”but rather the attempt to “sell nuclear power as the future again” 15 years after Fukushima. The Greens quickly wrote an energy paper. They demand a “climate turbo” – the acceleration of the energy transition. It is an attempt to murder the dead nuclear power once again just to be on the safe side.

CDU man Dennis Radtke, influential head of the Christian Democratic Workers, considers a return to nuclear power to be nonsense because: “Nothing is of any use anymore.” The Chancellor has declared Germany’s nuclear phase-out to be “irreversible”. From a technological and legal perspective, this is a false statement. But not politically.

The CDU cannot return to nuclear power

You have to immerse yourself in the world of Friedrich Merz Put yourself in it: A return to nuclear power cannot even be done with the CDU. The energy transition is also a child of the CDU. It was supported by the CSU. Not a single “black” prime minister supports a new nuclear power plant. Especially not in his state.

You can only hear different sounds from the CSU, but: Even the Christian Socialists are not calling for old nuclear power, but for new reactors that don’t yet exist. They care more about Bavaria as a research location than about electricity.

Merz sees: The SPD is against a nuclear renaissance. The Social Democrats have adopted this half-century-old founding idea of ​​the Greens. A return to nuclear power would be possible with the AfD or the FDP. But some are the enemy and others are already dead.

Nuclear phase-out in Germany vs. European energy policy

If you draw a line under it, it means: There may be a nuclear renaissance in Europebut not in Germany. Worse still: Von der Leyen wants to support the radiant rebirth with 200 million euros. A large proportion of them will come from Germany. The local taxpayer only pays for the cheaper and more climate-friendly nuclear power of the future for abroad.

Merz’s apodictic “irreversible” may be understandable in Machiavellian terms as the Chancellor’s power word. And yet the CDU leader and Federal Chancellor has ignited a turbo of frustration. This consists of an offensive refusal to change what exists. Merz – and his CDU – would have to turn against the SPD. But the Chancellor’s trademark is precisely his tactical giving in to the SPD. Merz has internalized it.

Anti-nuclear was the political Chanel No. 5 for decades

It should be remembered how the CDU leader, although the CDU program is committed to nuclear power, justified the nuclear power waiver in the coalition agreement: “The SPD didn’t want that, we had to accept that.” For the CDU, only coalitions with the SPD or the Greens will be possible in the next few years. And with them, when it comes to nuclear power: nothing. Or an expensive carry on like this. The further acceleration of the energy transition, the costs of which a DIHK study estimated at around five thousand billion euros.

The anti-nuclear movement was a child of the Greens. It was adopted by the SPD. Then from Merkel for election campaign purposes. Black people received green applause when they decided to abandon nuclear power. The Greens stood for the spirit of the times, and the blacks wanted to seize this corner of history. They have too. Anti-nuclear was political Chanel No. 5 for decades. The grandchildren of this idea are now professors of renewable energies at universities.

Criticism of the nuclear phase-out: voices from business and science

The others are very frustrated. For example with Christian Miele, the TV-famous founder of the company: “Hundreds of billions of euros of tax money are being thrown away to force an energy transition on us Europeans, only to then simply collect everything with thin lips on a normal Tuesday. Entire industries are simply run down for the fantasies of a few pushy ideologues.”

The damage caused by the nuclear phase-out and the luxury energy transition is huge. Energy economist Manuel Frondel speaks of a three-digit billion amount. Germany has long since become a permanent energy importer, says Stuttgart economics professor Andre Thess. Regarding the irrationality of the energy transition, he states: “Einstein would have no chance today.”

International energy strategy: Germany compared to China

Von der Leyen is not against the energy transition – on the contrary: she supported it, including Merkel’s final step, which is celebrating its 15th anniversary this Wednesday. Only: According to their ideas, Europe would have to do the same as China today: in terms of energy, they would have to proceed according to the “all you can eat” principle. As much renewable energy as possible, plus as many cheap, smaller nuclear power plants as possible.

That’s how it may be in Europe now. But not in Germany. Because here, as a “Welt” author comments in frustration, “narrow-minded ideologues and visionless lawyers” are in charge. In China, on the other hand, engineers. It was once the other way around. Christoph Lütge, professor of business ethics in Munich, says: “An entire generation of politicians is faced with the economic and ecological oath of disclosure.” This is a moral problem.

Political responsibility and the principle of “irreversible”

Merz said: There was nothing he could do about it. This is reminiscent of something Angela Merkel said about the migration crisis. The refugees are “here now”. Two CDU Chancellors have demonstrated on two questions of fate that the polluter pays principle does not apply in politics. That there is always a reason NOT to take responsibility.

That there is no liability for politicians – the greater the damage, apparently the less. One of Merkel’s most controversial words is: “no alternative”. There is now also a Merz word: “irreversible”. But: Nothing is without alternative. Nothing is irreversible. Politics can, as Carsten Linnemann put it, “just do it”. She just has to want it.