By Adam Bouzi

The decision by many European countries to phase out nuclear power in the name of environmentalism has raised questions about the impact on energy security and geopolitical consequences. Germany and Belgium, both countries with large nuclear power sectors, are at the forefront of this transition. This report will examine the geopolitical risks and consequences of these countries' nuclear phase-out and their transition towards gas power.

In Germany, the decision to phase out nuclear power was made in the wake of the Fukushima disaster in 2011. Despite the country's heavy reliance on nuclear power, the German government set a target to phase out all nuclear power plants by 2022. This has resulted in a significant shift in Germany's energy mix, with renewables making up a larger share of the country's energy production.

However, the nuclear phase-out has also had significant geopolitical consequences. Germany's reliance on gas imports from Russia has increased, with Russia supplying around 40% of the country's gas needs. This has led to concerns about the impact on energy security and the country's vulnerability to geopolitical pressure from Russia. In addition, the phase-out has led to a significant increase in Germany's use of coal, which has led to criticism of the country's environmental policies.

The situation in Belgium is similar, with the country phasing out nuclear power plants and transitioning towards gas power. Belgium currently relies on nuclear power for around 50% of its electricity production, but the government has set a target to phase out all nuclear power plants by 2025. This has led to concerns about the country's energy security and the impact on its economy, as the closure of nuclear power plants will lead to job losses and higher electricity prices.

Belgium imports 100% of its gas, about 3/4ths of which today comes from Norway and the Netherlands, which are are going to cut their gas production sharply to completely in the coming years. Although the Russianshare seems low, it is important to remember that Europe imports about 40% of its gas from Russia imports and – as showcased since the start of the Ukraine War - is exposed to price fluctuations due to Russian energy policy.

This has led to concerns about the impact on energy security and the country's vulnerability to geopolitical pressure from Russia. In addition, the country's reliance on gas has led to criticism of its environmental policies, as gas power is a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions.

The replacement of nuclear power with gas power has also led to accusations of hypocrisy. Nuclear power is a low-carbon source of energy, and many environmentalists have argued that phasing out nuclear power plants will lead to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Gas power is a fossil fuel, and its increased use could lead to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions and a delay in the transition towards renewable energy.

On top of that, gas power is not without its own geopolitical risks. The reliance on gas imports from countries like Russia and Turkey has led to concerns about the impact on energy security and the vulnerability to geopolitical pressure. In addition, the construction of gas pipelines and infrastructure has been subject to political disputes and controversy, such as the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.

The phase-out of nuclear power in countries like Germany and Belgium has significant geopolitical consequences. The increased reliance on gas imports from countries like Russia and the replacement of nuclear power with gas power has led to concerns about energy security and the vulnerability to geopolitical pressure. Additionally, the shift towards gas power has been criticized for its impact on the environment and the delay in the transition towards renewable energy.

As Europe moves towards a low-carbon energy mix, it is important to consider the geopolitical risks and consequences of this transition. In Belgium, the nuclear phase-out has been similarly contentious. The government had planned to shut down all nuclear reactors by 2025, but this was eventually pushed back to 2025-2026. The decision to phase out nuclear power was made in response to public pressure and concerns over safety, particularly after the Fukushima disaster in Japan in 2011.

The situation in Germany and Belgium highlights the tension between environmental ideology and pragmatic energy policy that takes geopolitics into account. While the phase-out of nuclear power may seem like a necessary step to combat climate change and reduce the risk of nuclear accidents, it has geopolitical consequences that cannot be ignored.

In contrast, France has taken a different approach. Despite being heavily reliant on nuclear power for its energy needs, France has not moved towards a phase-out of nuclear energy. In fact, France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity, with nuclear power accounting for over 70% of its electricity generation. While there are certainly concerns over the safety of nuclear power, France has been able to balance these concerns with the benefits of energy security and geopolitical influence.

As the world transitions towards renewable energy sources, it is important to consider the geopolitical implications of these decisions. While renewable energy sources like solar and wind are certainly cleaner and safer than nuclear power, they still require critical raw materials and have their own geopolitical consequences. The shift away from nuclear power must be done carefully and with an understanding of the potential geopolitical risks involved.

In conclusion, the nuclear phase-out in Germany and Belgium has had significant geopolitical consequences, particularly in terms of energy security and dependence on foreign gas imports. While there are certainly concerns over the safety of nuclear power, the move towards renewable energy sources must be done with an understanding of the potential geopolitical risks involved. As the world transitions towards a cleaner energy future, it is important to balance environmental ideology with pragmatic energy policy that doesn’t leave geopolitics on the backbench.