Thanks for the study. But this does not support your claim. This is just their interim report which only includes sub-areas and not final locations. They will propose five to ten regions by the end of 2027, which will then be analyzed in more detail and only then a final recommendation is given. These are simply the best regions, not necessarily those that perfectly meet all criteria. And as you can see in the report none of the listed sub-areas meet all criteria. This means that the recommendation is very likely a compromise. With nuclear waste. Just great! Also take a look at this section:

Section 23 para. 5 no. 5 StandAG, preservation of the barrier effect:
There must not be any available findings or data that cast doubt on the integrity of the effective containment zone, in particular on compliance with the geoscientific minimum requirements for hydraulic conductivity of the rock, thickness and expanse of the effec- tive containment zone over a period of one million years.

• Where there is clear evidence or data that the preservation of the barrier effect appears doubtful, the minimum requirement was considered not to have been satisfied. This minimum requirement is considered satisfied in all other cases, until such time as relevant data becomes available.

This references criterion 5. So every time you see “green” indicators, its possible that we don’t have any data on this.
So no, sorry. We don’t have a safe storage location right now. We just have ones, that are better than others. So adding even more waste? No thanks.
Fun fact: No European country has a final waste site at the moment, except Finland. What if no one is able to build one? Should we send everything to Finland? I don’t think their criteria included this space requirement. But it won’t even come to that, as they most likely simply have no desire to deal with the nuclear waste of all of Europe.

I don’t understand the “no space” argument.

It’s not about the space it takes to store the waste. It needs to be stored safely for one million years for the radiation levels to be safe again. This timeframe is also required by law. It is very unlikely, that we will ever finds such place in Germany.
Using another countrys storage will most likely come at an even higher price, because they want to make a profit on it on top.

Just buy a 1km x 1km farm plot in Bayern at one of the known stable rock locations and dig down.

See argument above. And: I live in Bavaria. And no thanks, even if it would be possible to store it here, we don’t want it. I guess no one wants a nuclear waste facility anywhere near his home and I fully understand it. That’s another kinda unsolvable problem.

Germany is already dependent on importing energy sources.

Yeah, but just because things are going that way right now doesn’t mean they always have to. Quite the contrary. The Russian war clearly showed us that dependencies like these should be completely reduced as fast as possible. Why be dependent on someone, if you don’t have to.

Even solar which I support requires imports. Wind less so but even then our wind turbines are only partially domestic.

Yes, some raw materials and some parts I would guess. This is the same with nuclear. But the difference starts by operating them. We don’t need a “fuel” for solar panals or wind turbines to work.

You’re right about climate change. But for Germany, nuclear power is not the awnser.

• We don’t have a safe, final place to store the waste.
• We would again be dependend on other countrys, to import uranium.
• All nuclear power plants are offline and would take a lot of money to modernise / reopen them. To have a significant impact over all we would also need to build more. All of this will easily take more than 10 years.

For us, it is way more cost efficient, faster and safer to invest in solar, wind and battery’s.