Climate action is not having an easy time at the moment. The national budget dispute between the SPD, Green Party and FDP once again impacts Germany’s Climate and Transformation Fund (CTF). Malte Kreutzfeldt has analyzed what long-term cuts could be made.
In an interview with Lukas Bayer, Luisa Neubauer criticizes politicians for always considering money in their decision-making. However, in times of climate crisis, every political decision also needs to be ecologically categorized, the climate activist demands. Neubauer sharply criticizes the Free Democratic Party (FDP) and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. With a view to the upcoming regional elections, she appeals to voters to vote strategically to ensure that climate action does not disappear from parliaments.
There have been some successful experiments in nuclear fusion in recent months. However, scientific academies estimate that it will take at least another two decades before the first fusion power plant goes into operation, as Tim Gabel reports. Tight budgets also play a big role here: According to the scientists, research needs more funding – money that is also urgently needed in other areas of the energy transition.
Ms Neubauer, in your new book “Der Klima-Atlas,” you and two co-authors present 80 maps and charts for the world of tomorrow. Which maps would persuade people who consider other topics more important now?
My aim is not for everyone to make climate the number one issue in their lives. The aspiration is for the climate to be taken into account when making decisions – both politically and on a personal level. For example: Regardless of which political decision is made, money is always factored in. A financial policy categorization is made. However, every political decision also needs an ecological categorization. Our Atlas shows, for example, that the costs of climate action are far lower than the damage caused by the climate disaster. We also use many maps to show that the climate crisis is not inevitable and what solutions are possible.
What do these solutions look like?
We show where people make an impact. This is about much more than purchasing behavior. We are experiencing such a blatant media distortion that reduces climate activism to plastic bags and tofu sausages. That is neither honest nor inspiring. Another maximally effective approach is to ask yourself where you work, how you use your voice and whether you are a good example for others.
Germany will hold regional elections in Saxony, Thuringia and Brandenburg in September. The AfD and BSW are leading in the polls. Is a climate backlash imminent – and what can be done about it at state level?
Over the past four years, many political parties have turned a blind eye to the problem of the climate crisis. Nobody expects them to copy the Green Party manifestos. But I do expect every democratic party to find an authentic approach to ecology and an honest understanding of crisis management. That has not happened and that is a failure of party politics. This could lead to severe collateral damage in various federal states – especially in eastern Germany. We must honestly appeal to voters to vote strategically and not elect ecology out of parliament.
Olaf Scholz took office as climate chancellor. However, his government has hardly made any progress, especially in the transport and building sectors. Why is making progress where many people’s lives are directly affected so difficult?
There are always two sides to the coin when it comes to climate action. On the one side, there’s getting started, where many people can agree to start with more solar and wind, more public transport and more insulation. But when it comes to stopping, there is an asymmetry. So we need to put an end to the ongoing sealing of areas, stop making ever bigger promises of new development without ecological considerations. Stop prioritizing fossil fuel companies. Stop giving in to outdated plans for Autobahn expansions.
The German government wanted to bring about a socio-ecological balance by introducing so-called climate money. What do you think of the fact that there still is no climate money?
That’s a disaster, obviously. I believe some people don’t realize how great the loss of trust already is. Refraining from the simplest measures, such as climate money or speed limits, is not helpful whatsoever. Absurdly enough, the climate money is being prevented above all by those who like to travel around the country and claim that climate action is so unfair. Of course, you can also see the great willingness of the liberals, in particular, to jeopardize social cohesion and trust in the government.
What measures do you now expect politicians and businesses to take?
Politics and the economy are currently working against humanity and against climate targets. Politicians and entrepreneurs who are not actively working towards intact livelihoods are inevitably working against them. There are obviously several factions here. There are those who have understood what is happening and want to transform the economy. They have realized that nobody is waiting for Germany and that the course has already been set towards ecology. And there are also those in politics who are at least theoretically committed to climate action. However, there are still parts of politics – and I would include the Chancellor in this – that cling to the illusion that the world will show consideration for our hesitancy.
Although climate action is still one of the top issues, depending on the poll, concerns about rising prices, immigration and the rise of the far-right overshadow the climate debate. Why is the climate movement unable to keep this problem of the century at the center of public attention?
I have a fundamental objection to this question. I believe it is a journalistic irresponsibility to demand majority approval specifically for climate action. Even if no one in all of Germany believed that more climate action was needed, the government has a constitutional duty to comply with climate targets. To now attempt to hold the climate movement to the task of organizing majorities for climate action is, in my opinion, a diversionary tactic – whether consciously or subconsciously. Organizing majorities is what the Chancellor should be doing. Of course, however, once you have turned people against climate action, it is much harder to get them interested and to campaign for measures.
Luisa Neubauer is the best-known figure in the German Fridays for Future movement. The 28-year-old studied geography, co-founded Fridays for Future in Germany in 2018 and has published several books. Her latest book – a ‘climate atlas’ featuring 80 maps for the world of tomorrow – was published by Rowohlt-Verlag on August 13. The book is co-authored by data journalist Christian Endt (Zeit Online) and illustrator Ole Häntzschel.
Steffi Lemke expressed her relief on Wednesday: The German Environment Minister announced that the “Action Program for Natural Climate Protection” will be spared further budget cuts. Around 3.5 billion euros are available for the period from 2023 to 2028. “The Action Program is and remains the largest funding for the conservation of nature and the climate ever seen in Germany,” said Lemke. The program will fund measures such as the rewetting of peatlands, the ecological restructuring of forests and the creation of near-natural green spaces in cities.
However, it remains unclear whether the Environment Minister’s joy is justified. Although this money is included in the Climate and Transformation Fund (KTF) budget, which is used to fund many of the government’s climate action measures, it is by no means certain that it will be paid out in full. This is because (as previously reported) the CTF budget plan includes a so-called global underspending of 9 billion euros, which is more than a quarter of the overall planned spending.
If all ministries were to exhaust their budget fully, a shortfall of 9 billion euros would have to be covered by additional debt – which is impossible due to the debt ceiling enshrined in the German Constitution. Thus, the Federal Ministry of Finance, which is tasked with ensuring compliance with the budget rules, will want to avoid this situation at all costs.
However, the question of how to prevent more than three-quarters of the total budgeted funds from being spent remained unanswered on Wednesday. “A global underspend is a common means of budget planning,” a spokesperson told Table.Briefings. This means that the Ministry of Finance is simply counting on a quarter of the total budgeted funds not being spent.
Looking at the past, this hope does not seem so unjustified at first: In previous years, the CTF funds outflow was extremely poor at times; in 2023, for example, only 56 percent of the budgeted funds were spent. However, it is not certain that this will also be the case in 2025. This is because, for one thing, the planned volume of the CTF has shrunk significantly since then; for another, the poor outflow of funds in 2023 was often justified on the grounds that funding guidelines had not been finalized in time – a problem that should be solved by now.
The financial difficulties next year would also be reduced if the CTF were not exhausted in 2024. Unused funds are transferred to the next year as “global additional revenue.” However, this is already planned to a certain extent: The 2025 budget plan includes 3 billion euros as global additional revenue; according to the Ministry of Finance, this corresponds to “the – at the time of the draft decision – expected underspending in the previous year.” With program spending of around 38 billion euros (excluding the EEG costs, which were only paid from the CTF in 2024), this would result in a spending ratio of over 90 percent. However, if less money were spent in 2024, the gap in 2025 would naturally be smaller than currently planned – the plan could work.
While the Finance Minister can only hope that a significant share of the earmarked funds will not be spent, the various ministries are optimistic that the funds outflow will improve significantly. For example, the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action announced that over half of the funds for building efficiency, the largest program expenditure item this year with a budget of 16.7 billion euros, have already been disbursed. As heating subsidy payments do not begin until September, it is also expected that the outflow of funds “will pick up again in the fall.” The Ministry for the Environment expects that all earmarked funds for climate action will be spent next year.
Nevertheless, it is at least conceivable that the budget for 2025 will work out if some of the funds remain unclaimed both this year and next. However, the situation will be much more dramatic in the following years. This is because in 2026, unspent funds from the previous year will probably no longer be carried over as the global underspend will absorb them. At the same time, spending in many areas will actually have to increase significantly to achieve the 2030 climate target. Revenue from carbon pricing will also increase over the next few years; the long-term CTF financial plan anticipates around 24 billion euros for 2026 and almost 30 billion euros for 2028 after 19 billion euros this year. However, the plan has so far been to use these additional revenues as part of the climate money that will be paid out to the public.
However, the recently approved budget plan instead envisages that more than 6 billion euros will be transferred from the CTF to the regular budget from 2027. Combined with the global underspend of 9 billion euros still planned for these years, this should lead to a significant shortfall even without climate money. However, this long-term scenario is unlikely to materialize in this form anyway – but rather serves as a reminder for the next government to come up with a new concept for financing the transformation as early as possible.
The timing of the publication of the new academy paper on nuclear fusion is debatable. The quality of the impulse paper “Nuclear fusion as a building block for a climate-neutral energy supply? Opportunities, challenges, time horizons” should have generated more attention than is presumably possible during the summer months. This is because the well-founded stocktaking by Leopoldina, Acatech and the Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities summarizes the dilemma and uncertainties of today’s research and energy policy regarding nuclear fusion in an analytical and well-founded manner.
The paper concludes that the technology is too late for the acute fight against climate change, but will require enormous financial resources soon. This is the only way to ensure that research and development can continue apace so that nuclear fusion can be used at all in this century – for example, as a replacement for existing baseload power plants. “However, according to system studies, they do not represent a necessity for a secure and reliable energy supply in the future based on current knowledge,” the authors write.
Due to the ongoing development work required, experts believe that the first fusion power plant can realistically be expected between 2045 and 2050 at the earliest, “although there is no guarantee of successful implementation.” In all likelihood, nuclear fusion “will not contribute to achieving the German and European climate targets for 2045/50.” Moreover, it is a complex and research-intensive technology that can only be realized with additional “considerable research funding from both the public and private sectors” over and above the extensive funding already provided.
The most probable use of nuclear fusion power plants will be in regions with high and constant demand, such as densely populated areas and industrial hubs. The authors also believe in a potential role for producing green hydrogen and its derivatives in Germany and Europe. In countries whose energy systems will continue to rely increasingly on large-scale power plants, “fusion power plants could gradually replace nuclear power plants in particular” – with the advantage that no final disposal sites would be required and the operation of fusion power plants would be less risky.
The goal of nuclear fusion research “is a climate-friendly and continuously available energy source that requires little space,” the authors write. However, a prerequisite for this is that nuclear fusion “could prevail over renewable energies and other low-emission technologies on the electricity market.” This, in turn, would depend on the costs at which fusion power plants can provide electricity. The academies cite current system studies, which assume that fusion power will only be viable if the costs are in the lower range of the current forecast corridor. However, they say that all estimates are currently associated with high uncertainty.
Assuming optimistically – despite all the uncertainties – that fusion can be part of the net zero future energy system, the academies see significant opportunities for Germany’s competitiveness in this area. Fuels could be produced locally, which would reduce dependence on energy-exporting countries. With the knowledge generated and the components developed, German start-ups could open up new export markets. In addition, they noted “revenue-relevant potential” in other application areas such as medicine, optics, diagnostics, robotics and space travel.
However, regarding the development of the technology, the study sees a long way to go before the first regular power plant is ready. The physical principles of nuclear fusion are understood. So far, there is no prototype for any of the existing fusion concepts and numerous practical challenges still need to be solved before a power plant can be operated: These include increasing the energy yield, producing the fuel tritium and developing particularly resistant materials for the so-called “first wall” and high-powered lasers.
In the paper, the academies refrain from making a final assessment of whether magnetic or inertial confinement fusion has the lead in the race between technological approaches. In the past, Leopoldina, in particular, advocated a focus on magnetic fusion and faced criticism for a biased selection of experts. Acatech President Jan Wörner, on the other hand, told Table.Briefings earlier this year that it was too early to make a decision.
The academies take a more analytical approach in their current paper: A stocktaking of different technology maturity levels (TLR 1 to 9; 9 = qualified system with proof of successful use) paints a differentiated picture. In the field of magnetic fusion, the tokamak is currently rated as slightly more mature (TLR 4 to 5 = experimental setup on a laboratory scale or in a relevant operational environment) than the stellarator, because “higher values of the triple product and a higher technological maturity have been achieved with it to date compared to the stellarator.”
The paper states that the approaches in laser fusion are at different stages of development: with TRL 3 (proof of concept), the indirect drive method is the most advanced. While inertial confinement fusion lags behind in terms of technological maturity, it is ahead in the Lawson criterion. The much-cited laser fusion experiment at the US National Ignition Facility (NIF) was the first time that more thermal energy was released than was put into a fusion reaction. However, this does not include the energy required for laser operation (see chart).
After weighing up all the opportunities and challenges, the experts conclude the viability of continuing nuclear fusion research while continuing to develop and establish a green energy system, particularly using renewable energies, adding that there is no time to wait for nuclear fusion: “The commitment to nuclear fusion should therefore not limit other efforts to achieve a climate-neutral energy system, but should complement them.”
Given the projected budget cuts for energy research, this is no easy task for German politicians, who, in the current government constellation, also have to negotiate different interests and approaches in the research and energy sectors. The academies provide some specific tasks as scientific advice to politicians: “Establishing the regulatory basis as early and proactively as possible” could reduce investment risks and thus attract private investors. They also believe bringing nuclear fusion into the public debate is essential to “enable active participation in future development and decision-making processes.”
The environment is an often overlooked victim of armed conflict. Doug Weir wants to bring it more into the focus of security policy. He is the director of the Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS). This British organization aims to raise social awareness about the ecological and humanitarian consequences of conflicts and military activities. He and his team research the environmental impacts of war and the role of environmental factors such as climate change as catalysts or drivers of conflict.
For instance, climate change was one of the catalysts of the civil war in Syria, which has been raging since 2011: An extreme drought between 2007 and 2010, exacerbated by climate change, caused the agricultural system in north-eastern Syria to collapse. Many families lost their agricultural income and fled to the cities, which had previously been the destination of Iraqi refugees. As the population grew, so did the pressure for resources in the cities. This is likely to have been one of the reasons for the protests and unrest that ultimately resulted in civil war, as a study published in the journal PNAS in 2015 shows.
Weir was born in York in November 1976 and studied geology in Manchester and newspaper journalism in Sheffield. While he first developed an interest in the environment as a child, he discovered military aspects more by chance through his first job. After graduating, he worked for an organization that campaigned against the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
In 2011, he founded the Toxic Remnants of War Project, which deals with environmental pollution caused by military toxins. Five years later, he and his team decided to expand the project and founded CEOBS in 2018. “There are new tools, social media, remote sensing. This allows us to investigate the connection between armed conflicts and the environment in more detail,” he says.
Weir currently focuses on this in particular concerning Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine. It is important that this research is done now, he says: “If we talk about the environment while the conflict is happening, we can respond more coherently and plan for sustainable rebuilding. We can also improve the process of documenting environmental damage.”
What is important to Weir is that the discourse on reducing emissions from the military sector starts now: “There are no magic technical solutions. Militaries are highly dependent on fossil fuels and their equipment has a long lifespan.” That is why it is important to start thinking about how decommissioned equipment can be replaced sustainably in the future, Weir says.
Even though Weir emphasizes that the military will never be sustainable in any meaningful sense, he is optimistic that the sector can reduce its environmental impact – and therefore calls for global standards for its decarbonization. Moreover, this should be discussed “in both climate and security forums.” Anouk Schlung
Climate action is not having an easy time at the moment. The national budget dispute between the SPD, Green Party and FDP once again impacts Germany’s Climate and Transformation Fund (CTF). Malte Kreutzfeldt has analyzed what long-term cuts could be made.
In an interview with Lukas Bayer, Luisa Neubauer criticizes politicians for always considering money in their decision-making. However, in times of climate crisis, every political decision also needs to be ecologically categorized, the climate activist demands. Neubauer sharply criticizes the Free Democratic Party (FDP) and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. With a view to the upcoming regional elections, she appeals to voters to vote strategically to ensure that climate action does not disappear from parliaments.
There have been some successful experiments in nuclear fusion in recent months. However, scientific academies estimate that it will take at least another two decades before the first fusion power plant goes into operation, as Tim Gabel reports. Tight budgets also play a big role here: According to the scientists, research needs more funding – money that is also urgently needed in other areas of the energy transition.
Ms Neubauer, in your new book “Der Klima-Atlas,” you and two co-authors present 80 maps and charts for the world of tomorrow. Which maps would persuade people who consider other topics more important now?
My aim is not for everyone to make climate the number one issue in their lives. The aspiration is for the climate to be taken into account when making decisions – both politically and on a personal level. For example: Regardless of which political decision is made, money is always factored in. A financial policy categorization is made. However, every political decision also needs an ecological categorization. Our Atlas shows, for example, that the costs of climate action are far lower than the damage caused by the climate disaster. We also use many maps to show that the climate crisis is not inevitable and what solutions are possible.
What do these solutions look like?
We show where people make an impact. This is about much more than purchasing behavior. We are experiencing such a blatant media distortion that reduces climate activism to plastic bags and tofu sausages. That is neither honest nor inspiring. Another maximally effective approach is to ask yourself where you work, how you use your voice and whether you are a good example for others.
Germany will hold regional elections in Saxony, Thuringia and Brandenburg in September. The AfD and BSW are leading in the polls. Is a climate backlash imminent – and what can be done about it at state level?
Over the past four years, many political parties have turned a blind eye to the problem of the climate crisis. Nobody expects them to copy the Green Party manifestos. But I do expect every democratic party to find an authentic approach to ecology and an honest understanding of crisis management. That has not happened and that is a failure of party politics. This could lead to severe collateral damage in various federal states – especially in eastern Germany. We must honestly appeal to voters to vote strategically and not elect ecology out of parliament.
Olaf Scholz took office as climate chancellor. However, his government has hardly made any progress, especially in the transport and building sectors. Why is making progress where many people’s lives are directly affected so difficult?
There are always two sides to the coin when it comes to climate action. On the one side, there’s getting started, where many people can agree to start with more solar and wind, more public transport and more insulation. But when it comes to stopping, there is an asymmetry. So we need to put an end to the ongoing sealing of areas, stop making ever bigger promises of new development without ecological considerations. Stop prioritizing fossil fuel companies. Stop giving in to outdated plans for Autobahn expansions.
The German government wanted to bring about a socio-ecological balance by introducing so-called climate money. What do you think of the fact that there still is no climate money?
That’s a disaster, obviously. I believe some people don’t realize how great the loss of trust already is. Refraining from the simplest measures, such as climate money or speed limits, is not helpful whatsoever. Absurdly enough, the climate money is being prevented above all by those who like to travel around the country and claim that climate action is so unfair. Of course, you can also see the great willingness of the liberals, in particular, to jeopardize social cohesion and trust in the government.
What measures do you now expect politicians and businesses to take?
Politics and the economy are currently working against humanity and against climate targets. Politicians and entrepreneurs who are not actively working towards intact livelihoods are inevitably working against them. There are obviously several factions here. There are those who have understood what is happening and want to transform the economy. They have realized that nobody is waiting for Germany and that the course has already been set towards ecology. And there are also those in politics who are at least theoretically committed to climate action. However, there are still parts of politics – and I would include the Chancellor in this – that cling to the illusion that the world will show consideration for our hesitancy.
Although climate action is still one of the top issues, depending on the poll, concerns about rising prices, immigration and the rise of the far-right overshadow the climate debate. Why is the climate movement unable to keep this problem of the century at the center of public attention?
I have a fundamental objection to this question. I believe it is a journalistic irresponsibility to demand majority approval specifically for climate action. Even if no one in all of Germany believed that more climate action was needed, the government has a constitutional duty to comply with climate targets. To now attempt to hold the climate movement to the task of organizing majorities for climate action is, in my opinion, a diversionary tactic – whether consciously or subconsciously. Organizing majorities is what the Chancellor should be doing. Of course, however, once you have turned people against climate action, it is much harder to get them interested and to campaign for measures.
Luisa Neubauer is the best-known figure in the German Fridays for Future movement. The 28-year-old studied geography, co-founded Fridays for Future in Germany in 2018 and has published several books. Her latest book – a ‘climate atlas’ featuring 80 maps for the world of tomorrow – was published by Rowohlt-Verlag on August 13. The book is co-authored by data journalist Christian Endt (Zeit Online) and illustrator Ole Häntzschel.
Steffi Lemke expressed her relief on Wednesday: The German Environment Minister announced that the “Action Program for Natural Climate Protection” will be spared further budget cuts. Around 3.5 billion euros are available for the period from 2023 to 2028. “The Action Program is and remains the largest funding for the conservation of nature and the climate ever seen in Germany,” said Lemke. The program will fund measures such as the rewetting of peatlands, the ecological restructuring of forests and the creation of near-natural green spaces in cities.
However, it remains unclear whether the Environment Minister’s joy is justified. Although this money is included in the Climate and Transformation Fund (KTF) budget, which is used to fund many of the government’s climate action measures, it is by no means certain that it will be paid out in full. This is because (as previously reported) the CTF budget plan includes a so-called global underspending of 9 billion euros, which is more than a quarter of the overall planned spending.
If all ministries were to exhaust their budget fully, a shortfall of 9 billion euros would have to be covered by additional debt – which is impossible due to the debt ceiling enshrined in the German Constitution. Thus, the Federal Ministry of Finance, which is tasked with ensuring compliance with the budget rules, will want to avoid this situation at all costs.
However, the question of how to prevent more than three-quarters of the total budgeted funds from being spent remained unanswered on Wednesday. “A global underspend is a common means of budget planning,” a spokesperson told Table.Briefings. This means that the Ministry of Finance is simply counting on a quarter of the total budgeted funds not being spent.
Looking at the past, this hope does not seem so unjustified at first: In previous years, the CTF funds outflow was extremely poor at times; in 2023, for example, only 56 percent of the budgeted funds were spent. However, it is not certain that this will also be the case in 2025. This is because, for one thing, the planned volume of the CTF has shrunk significantly since then; for another, the poor outflow of funds in 2023 was often justified on the grounds that funding guidelines had not been finalized in time – a problem that should be solved by now.
The financial difficulties next year would also be reduced if the CTF were not exhausted in 2024. Unused funds are transferred to the next year as “global additional revenue.” However, this is already planned to a certain extent: The 2025 budget plan includes 3 billion euros as global additional revenue; according to the Ministry of Finance, this corresponds to “the – at the time of the draft decision – expected underspending in the previous year.” With program spending of around 38 billion euros (excluding the EEG costs, which were only paid from the CTF in 2024), this would result in a spending ratio of over 90 percent. However, if less money were spent in 2024, the gap in 2025 would naturally be smaller than currently planned – the plan could work.
While the Finance Minister can only hope that a significant share of the earmarked funds will not be spent, the various ministries are optimistic that the funds outflow will improve significantly. For example, the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action announced that over half of the funds for building efficiency, the largest program expenditure item this year with a budget of 16.7 billion euros, have already been disbursed. As heating subsidy payments do not begin until September, it is also expected that the outflow of funds “will pick up again in the fall.” The Ministry for the Environment expects that all earmarked funds for climate action will be spent next year.
Nevertheless, it is at least conceivable that the budget for 2025 will work out if some of the funds remain unclaimed both this year and next. However, the situation will be much more dramatic in the following years. This is because in 2026, unspent funds from the previous year will probably no longer be carried over as the global underspend will absorb them. At the same time, spending in many areas will actually have to increase significantly to achieve the 2030 climate target. Revenue from carbon pricing will also increase over the next few years; the long-term CTF financial plan anticipates around 24 billion euros for 2026 and almost 30 billion euros for 2028 after 19 billion euros this year. However, the plan has so far been to use these additional revenues as part of the climate money that will be paid out to the public.
However, the recently approved budget plan instead envisages that more than 6 billion euros will be transferred from the CTF to the regular budget from 2027. Combined with the global underspend of 9 billion euros still planned for these years, this should lead to a significant shortfall even without climate money. However, this long-term scenario is unlikely to materialize in this form anyway – but rather serves as a reminder for the next government to come up with a new concept for financing the transformation as early as possible.
The timing of the publication of the new academy paper on nuclear fusion is debatable. The quality of the impulse paper “Nuclear fusion as a building block for a climate-neutral energy supply? Opportunities, challenges, time horizons” should have generated more attention than is presumably possible during the summer months. This is because the well-founded stocktaking by Leopoldina, Acatech and the Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities summarizes the dilemma and uncertainties of today’s research and energy policy regarding nuclear fusion in an analytical and well-founded manner.
The paper concludes that the technology is too late for the acute fight against climate change, but will require enormous financial resources soon. This is the only way to ensure that research and development can continue apace so that nuclear fusion can be used at all in this century – for example, as a replacement for existing baseload power plants. “However, according to system studies, they do not represent a necessity for a secure and reliable energy supply in the future based on current knowledge,” the authors write.
Due to the ongoing development work required, experts believe that the first fusion power plant can realistically be expected between 2045 and 2050 at the earliest, “although there is no guarantee of successful implementation.” In all likelihood, nuclear fusion “will not contribute to achieving the German and European climate targets for 2045/50.” Moreover, it is a complex and research-intensive technology that can only be realized with additional “considerable research funding from both the public and private sectors” over and above the extensive funding already provided.
The most probable use of nuclear fusion power plants will be in regions with high and constant demand, such as densely populated areas and industrial hubs. The authors also believe in a potential role for producing green hydrogen and its derivatives in Germany and Europe. In countries whose energy systems will continue to rely increasingly on large-scale power plants, “fusion power plants could gradually replace nuclear power plants in particular” – with the advantage that no final disposal sites would be required and the operation of fusion power plants would be less risky.
The goal of nuclear fusion research “is a climate-friendly and continuously available energy source that requires little space,” the authors write. However, a prerequisite for this is that nuclear fusion “could prevail over renewable energies and other low-emission technologies on the electricity market.” This, in turn, would depend on the costs at which fusion power plants can provide electricity. The academies cite current system studies, which assume that fusion power will only be viable if the costs are in the lower range of the current forecast corridor. However, they say that all estimates are currently associated with high uncertainty.
Assuming optimistically – despite all the uncertainties – that fusion can be part of the net zero future energy system, the academies see significant opportunities for Germany’s competitiveness in this area. Fuels could be produced locally, which would reduce dependence on energy-exporting countries. With the knowledge generated and the components developed, German start-ups could open up new export markets. In addition, they noted “revenue-relevant potential” in other application areas such as medicine, optics, diagnostics, robotics and space travel.
However, regarding the development of the technology, the study sees a long way to go before the first regular power plant is ready. The physical principles of nuclear fusion are understood. So far, there is no prototype for any of the existing fusion concepts and numerous practical challenges still need to be solved before a power plant can be operated: These include increasing the energy yield, producing the fuel tritium and developing particularly resistant materials for the so-called “first wall” and high-powered lasers.
In the paper, the academies refrain from making a final assessment of whether magnetic or inertial confinement fusion has the lead in the race between technological approaches. In the past, Leopoldina, in particular, advocated a focus on magnetic fusion and faced criticism for a biased selection of experts. Acatech President Jan Wörner, on the other hand, told Table.Briefings earlier this year that it was too early to make a decision.
The academies take a more analytical approach in their current paper: A stocktaking of different technology maturity levels (TLR 1 to 9; 9 = qualified system with proof of successful use) paints a differentiated picture. In the field of magnetic fusion, the tokamak is currently rated as slightly more mature (TLR 4 to 5 = experimental setup on a laboratory scale or in a relevant operational environment) than the stellarator, because “higher values of the triple product and a higher technological maturity have been achieved with it to date compared to the stellarator.”
The paper states that the approaches in laser fusion are at different stages of development: with TRL 3 (proof of concept), the indirect drive method is the most advanced. While inertial confinement fusion lags behind in terms of technological maturity, it is ahead in the Lawson criterion. The much-cited laser fusion experiment at the US National Ignition Facility (NIF) was the first time that more thermal energy was released than was put into a fusion reaction. However, this does not include the energy required for laser operation (see chart).
After weighing up all the opportunities and challenges, the experts conclude the viability of continuing nuclear fusion research while continuing to develop and establish a green energy system, particularly using renewable energies, adding that there is no time to wait for nuclear fusion: “The commitment to nuclear fusion should therefore not limit other efforts to achieve a climate-neutral energy system, but should complement them.”
Given the projected budget cuts for energy research, this is no easy task for German politicians, who, in the current government constellation, also have to negotiate different interests and approaches in the research and energy sectors. The academies provide some specific tasks as scientific advice to politicians: “Establishing the regulatory basis as early and proactively as possible” could reduce investment risks and thus attract private investors. They also believe bringing nuclear fusion into the public debate is essential to “enable active participation in future development and decision-making processes.”
The environment is an often overlooked victim of armed conflict. Doug Weir wants to bring it more into the focus of security policy. He is the director of the Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS). This British organization aims to raise social awareness about the ecological and humanitarian consequences of conflicts and military activities. He and his team research the environmental impacts of war and the role of environmental factors such as climate change as catalysts or drivers of conflict.
For instance, climate change was one of the catalysts of the civil war in Syria, which has been raging since 2011: An extreme drought between 2007 and 2010, exacerbated by climate change, caused the agricultural system in north-eastern Syria to collapse. Many families lost their agricultural income and fled to the cities, which had previously been the destination of Iraqi refugees. As the population grew, so did the pressure for resources in the cities. This is likely to have been one of the reasons for the protests and unrest that ultimately resulted in civil war, as a study published in the journal PNAS in 2015 shows.
Weir was born in York in November 1976 and studied geology in Manchester and newspaper journalism in Sheffield. While he first developed an interest in the environment as a child, he discovered military aspects more by chance through his first job. After graduating, he worked for an organization that campaigned against the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
In 2011, he founded the Toxic Remnants of War Project, which deals with environmental pollution caused by military toxins. Five years later, he and his team decided to expand the project and founded CEOBS in 2018. “There are new tools, social media, remote sensing. This allows us to investigate the connection between armed conflicts and the environment in more detail,” he says.
Weir currently focuses on this in particular concerning Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine. It is important that this research is done now, he says: “If we talk about the environment while the conflict is happening, we can respond more coherently and plan for sustainable rebuilding. We can also improve the process of documenting environmental damage.”
What is important to Weir is that the discourse on reducing emissions from the military sector starts now: “There are no magic technical solutions. Militaries are highly dependent on fossil fuels and their equipment has a long lifespan.” That is why it is important to start thinking about how decommissioned equipment can be replaced sustainably in the future, Weir says.
Even though Weir emphasizes that the military will never be sustainable in any meaningful sense, he is optimistic that the sector can reduce its environmental impact – and therefore calls for global standards for its decarbonization. Moreover, this should be discussed “in both climate and security forums.” Anouk Schlung
