Fatih Birol considers Germany’s dual strategy risky, as the country is phasing out coal and nuclear power while simultaneously aiming to remain an industrial powerhouse. The head of the International Energy Agency calls it a “historic mistake.” At the same time, he is hoping for a change of course under Chancellor Friedrich Merz, because Merz has described the nuclear phase-out as a “serious strategic error.” Birol says: “I was very pleased to hear these words from the Chancellor.” (welt: 05.02.26)
Global Nuclear Backlash – Safety and Energy Demand Drive the Return
Internationally, the trend is clearly shifting toward nuclear power, as many countries prioritize security of supply. Birol describes two main drivers: countries want to generate more electricity domestically, and demand is growing due to artificial intelligence, heat pumps, and electric vehicles. According to Birol, nuclear power generation reached a record 2,860 terawatt-hours in 2025. At the same time, around 70 gigawatts of new nuclear power capacity are being added worldwide, marking the highest level in about three decades.
Birol compares Germany to other countries, pointing out that the technology is not fundamentally different. High initial investments are common in every country, but he believes the debate is often too one-sided. Operating costs remain low, and fuel costs are negligible. Therefore, in his view, the overall cost level is not dramatically higher than that of gas-fired power plants, while the planning costs are higher.
Costs, final storage, construction time – Birol sees the main problem as political.
For Birol, politics ultimately decides, because without political will, neither new plants nor stable framework conditions will be established. He emphasizes the advantage of nuclear energy with a statement that is provocative in Germany: “You push the button, and the electricity is there.” By this, he means 24/7 availability, whereas weather-dependent sources alone cannot cover every peak demand. He deliberately phrases his barb against Berlin in a pointed way: “Almost the entire world is relying on nuclear energy again. That should give the Germans pause for thought.”
At the same time, Birol acknowledges that an immediate German return to nuclear power would be difficult because public sentiment in the country and the practicalities of reactivating decommissioned reactors present significant hurdles. Nevertheless, he calls for a “sober second look.” Even a single power plant connected to the grid would, in his view, provide noticeable relief, especially since every secured terawatt-hour can reduce import pressure.
Mini-reactors as leverage: Market entry from the 2030s and falling unit costs
Birol focuses on small modular reactors, so-called SMRs, as many European countries are planning to use precisely these. He expects market entry in the early 2030s. These plants are expected to be cheaper, faster to build, and easier to operate, although, according to Birol, the first projects will naturally be the most expensive. He points to Italy: After two referendums against nuclear energy, the government is now relying on a return via SMRs.
Regarding price, Birol argues that learning effects will drive down costs, as mass production and experience will reduce the price curve. He anticipates that costs will fall by approximately 25 to 30 percent by the mid-2030s. At the same time, he urges caution when choosing a partner, as dependencies have long-term consequences. His analogy is stark: “The decision to choose a nuclear partner should be considered as carefully as a marriage.”
More self-generated electricity, more sovereignty – Birol warns against dependencies
Birol links nuclear energy to geopolitics because he sees the world as “increasingly dangerous” and describes electricity as a matter of sovereignty. He expects significantly higher demand in Germany – from industry, transportation, and households – while renewable energies alone are unlikely to suffice. He calls solar important but limited, and wind power strong but not sustainable on its own. Therefore, he calls for additional reliable sources, provided that politicians and the public reach a new consensus.
As an example, Birol cites Japan after Fukushima, where public opinion changed when electricity prices rose. He assesses nuclear fusion more positively than some critics, but clearly with a time horizon: “I wouldn’t call it a wild dream, but a beautiful one.” Fusion doesn’t offer a solution for today or tomorrow, but rather “perhaps for the day after tomorrow.”
Finally, Birol sharply criticizes Germany’s past energy decisions because they weakened its competitiveness. He cites two “historical errors”: excessive dependence on Russia and the phase-out of nuclear power. He interprets Merz’s admission as a signal that Berlin could act more rationally again. Birol’s core message remains simple: Germany needs an ample supply of electricity for modernization, prosperity, and energy security.