Albeit the question here is what if uranium supply is weaponised, can countries truly achieve long-term energy security if they still import fuel and raw materials? Yergin (1988) defined “secure” as domestic. The uranium required to power the nuclear reactors will have to be imported, although the nuclear plants will be in Germany (Dempsey, 2022). This may mirror current gas and fossil fuel dependencies and shift the Anthropocene into an era of uranium dependency, leaving it vulnerable to the weaponisation of uranium, which may mimic what Russia is doing right now. In recent weeks, the cost of uranium has increased due to scarce supply, resulting in increased demand as countries rushed to gain uranium with the restricted gas supply (ibid.). The cost of raw uranium, referred to as “yellowcake,” has increased by approximately 60%. It currently trades at a nine-year high of almost $50 per pound (ibid.). The market is said to be nearing a “tipping” point resulting from the recent boom, and with demand increasing at exponential rates, uranium prices are beginning to rise (ibid.). Therefore, the use of nuclear may alleviate current supply-side gas demands. However, in the long term, the use of uranium may leave Germany vulnerable to geopolitical shocks if the supply is restricted in the form of retaliation.  

However, unlike other technologies, nuclear plants generate electricity from very small amounts of fuel (Adamantiades & Kessides, 2009). Dependent on the model, a plant can operate without needing new fuel for up to 24 months (ibid.). Further, the new fuel for nuclear plants can be stored for up to several years, contributing to increased energy security protection as sudden energy market shocks are minimised (ibid.). Therefore, it does not mirror exactly the chain of events resulting from fossil fuel and gas supply shocks, as there is a time lag. For example, geopolitical tensions leading to importing countries restricting supply would give exporting countries such as Germany more time to find other supply streams, therefore minimising energy cost spikes due to shocks- such as what has happened with Russia and gas.    

Moreover, scholars such as Helm (2002) argue that the crucial goal of energy policy is to equate demand with a secure supply. Corroborating with the IEA (2022) world energy outlook that highlighted the need for energy efficiency and behavioural measures to avoid mismatches between demand and supply. Nuclear may be a viable option as nuclear power is incredibly efficient and can provide a secure supply of energy as it can operate in all weather, day, and night. Further, nuclear energy has the highest capacity factor (US Department of Energy, 2021). It is nearly two times more reliable than natural gas and coal and three times more reliable than wind and solar (ibid.).   

Nonetheless, uranium is non-renewable. The transition from one non-renewable energy source to another less depleted non-renewable may create a negative feedback loop. For long-term energy security, it is imperative to invest in renewables. Further, there is uncertainty about uranium supply; the world nuclear association estimates nuclear stockpiles to last 90 years and, although there could be future investment into gaining more supply there is still uncertainty (WNA, 2022). In principle, the extent to which nuclear can provide Germany with energy security is 90 years, notwithstanding the threat of high prices and the potential weaponisation of nuclear supply. Therefore, although nuclear energy is powerful and can operate in all weathers and times, uranium will eventually run out and so can only help Germany with the current energy crisis.   

Germany is also running out of nuclear fuel, and it does not help that Russia is its biggest supplier (Weise, 2022). Russia is the second-biggest supplier of uranium to European nuclear power plants. According to the World Nuclear Association (WNA, 2022), Russia provides about 35% of the enriched uranium globally (ibid.). According to German nuclear power plant operator Preussen Elektra, Germany’s last three reactors are also mainly running on Russian and Kazakh uranium (ibid.). So, if Germany does switch to nuclear, they may become nuclear reliant on Russia, which leads to the same problem they have with gas. However, Germany could get uranium from other countries too.   

In the transitionary phase, nuclear power may provide supply-side electricity relief, but it cannot provide long term energy security due to the nature of uranium. Germany has entered a crisis due to its overdependence on Russian gas. Therefore, it would be counterproductive for Germany to base any new energy policies/decisions on non-renewables and imports. It is important to note that Germany’s nuclear and coal are alternatives that levy the demand on natural gas, however they do not completely replace the energy as it is nonbinary. But, in the transitionary phase, nuclear can provide Germany relief, especially considering Germany already has nuclear plants.   

Nuclear vs. Coal

Currently, Germany is burning coal and filling their gas storages with liquefied natural gas (LNG) to cope with the energy crisis (Schmitz, 2022). Consequently, the price of gas and electricity has decreased as shown in Figure 2. The falling prices correlate to decreasing gas demands. Demand has decreased by 7 percent due to consumers being careful with their energy usages coupled with government’s deliberate demand-reduction measures (Clark, 2022). However, some have questioned Germany’s use of coal over nuclear.