Fukushima, or be careful what you wish for, Germany

After the Fukushima event Germany's chancellor switched on a moment's notice away from nuclear energy to - alleged - renewable energy. All paid for by the citizens, NOT the industry.

Here is a paper that deals with the after-effects in Japan. It does not look good and can, cum grano salis, be applied to Germany in the widest sense.

BE CAUTIOUS WITH THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE FROM FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI NUCLEAR ACCIDENT

Conclusion

In this paper, we evaluate the downstream effects from invoking the precautionary principle following the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident in which Japan ceased operation at all nuclear power plants throughout the country. In an effort to meet the energy demands, nuclear power was replaced by imported fossil fuels, which led to increases in electricity prices. The price increases led to a reduction in electricity consumption but only during the coldest times of the year. Given its protective effects from extreme weather, the reduced electricity consumption led to an increase in mortality during very cold temperatures. We estimate that the increased mortality resulting from the higher energy prices outnumbered the mortality from the accident itself, suggesting that applying the precautionary principle caused more harm than good.

Another potential welfare impact from replacing nuclear power with fossil fuels is the health effects from local air quality. In addition to the lower marginal costs of energy production, nuclear power has minimal impacts on local air quality. Fossil fuels, on the other hand, emit a wide range of pollutants that deteriorate local air quality and have significant effects on morbidity and mortality (see, for example, Graff Zivin and Neidell 2013, and references within). Indeed, estimates from the US show that closure of nuclear power plants after the Three Mile Island accident led to increased particle pollution and higher infant mortality (Severnini 2017).26 Therefore, the total welfare effects from ceasing nuclear production in Japan are likely to be even larger than what we estimate, and represents a fruitful line for future research.

Given this surprising result, why do governments invoke this principle? One possible explanation is that salient events, such as a nuclear disaster, affect perceived risk, which is often based more on emotions and instincts than on reason and rationality ... Meanwhile, deaths from higher energy prices are largely unnoticed; we cannot attribute any particular death to the higher energy prices, but can only estimate population level impacts. Although the public and policy makers place greater fears on the deaths directly attributable to the accident, the two are equivalent from a cost-benefit perspective, and should be treated accordingly. The precautionary principle emphasizes salient events – the worst case scenario – and in doing so ignores the alternative, thereby encouraging inefficient policy-making.