| 24 Mar 2026
Dreams of Green Fields – The "grüne Wiese" in German Nuclear Decommissioning Discourse
Abstract. The term "grüne Wiese" (literally "green meadow" or "field") has become a prevalent expression in German nuclear decommissioning discourse, appearing across government reports, media articles, and activist actions. This article explores the rhetorical, symbolic, cultural and political dimensions of the "grüne Wiese" within German nuclear decommissioning discourse through the lens of cultural analysis, drawing on a visit to an actual "grüne Wiese" site, archival research, and analysis of media and anti-nuclear activist engagements with the term. Treating the phrase as a "floating signifier," it traces how the term emerged in anti-nuclear protest before being strategically deployed by industry and politicians to assuage public concern about nuclear power. As Germany enters an intensive phase of decommissioning and the search for a final repository, the term promises closure precisely at a moment when societal debate and engagement are needed most urgently.
The overall argument of this article is relevant in the context of emerging social and cultural studies about nuclear decommissioning. The author exposes her main argument quite clearly. Using Ernesto Laclau's concept of "floating signifier" (derived from the Saussarian approach distinguishing signifier and signified as the two components of the sign) the author describes how in the German context communities of experts and anti-nuclear movements have mobilized the word "greenfield" in their discourses about decommissioning. Born as a tool of contestation among anti-nuclear activists to index a portion of land disrupted by the erection of a nuclear facility, since the mid-1980s the term has been picked up by regulators and experts to point to the end status of decommissioning activities with the intention of demonstrating the sustainability of nuclear power through the possibility of returning decommissioned nuclear sites to their original "natural" status. The use of Karlstein and Niederaichbach as exemplary cases in German decommissioning discourse is quite revealing of the ambiguous meaning of "greenfield." More recently, anti-nuclear activists have been using "greenfield" or rather "green meadows" exactly to flag the gap existing between words and deeds in the uncertain decommissioning processes and outcomes. The discussion of specific examples of the different uses of the "greenfield" metaphor as emerging in official documents, reports, popular magazines, cartoons, and newspapers makes the argument solid.
The author's use of Laclau's analytical tool to describe the ambiguities of the term "greenfield/green meadow" in the German context (which, as the author underlines, is quite different from the English speaking one) is probably the most problematic aspect of the paper. I would suggest to think about "greenfield" more thoroughly to move beyond the mere description of its multiple and conflicting uses. Are "greenfield" and "green meadow" metaphors? Maybe myths (in Roland Barthes' sense) ? Maybe symbols? If so, how do they work and what is their performative deployment? The author touches upon it in multiple instances, but she shies away from digging more into the analysis of the performative function of the formula. One example of such an approach is O'Connor and Hilgartner's book "Nukespeak" or the analysis of "Containment" (2000) by William Kinsella. I think the author might benefit from discussing these two examples as a way to anchor her analysis to a broader discussion of the ways in which language is deployed in power struggles, especially in the nuclear field.
There is also another aspect about the ambiguity of the term "greenfield" and its suggestive deployment to represent the ideal(istic) outcome of decommissioning projects. Official definitions of nuclear decommissioning by regulatory authorities in different contexts and countries are quite generic. Take the US NRC one, for example: " The process of safely closing a nuclear power plant (or other facility where nuclear materials are handled) to retire it from service after its useful life has ended. This process primarily involves decontaminating the facility to reduce residual radioactivity and then releasing the property for unrestricted or (under certain conditions) restricted use. This often includes dismantling the facility or dedicating it to other purposes." The fact that "greenfield" is not ever mentioned and that it is used by the industry to demonstrate its ability to "close the cycle" or to be compliant with the idea of "sustainability" or "circular economy" is exactly the demonstration that decommissioning is not a mere technical endeavor, but a technopolitical one. That is, private companies, public decommissioning companies, and regulators in different countries establish different decommissioning practices and rules, despite adopting similar definitions. Usually these definitions never take into account "bottom up" perspectives, and that is why the IAEA has organized numerous technical workshops on "stakeholder involvement" just to demonstrate that conflicts over the very setting of decommissioning objectives can be managed in a fair way.
Imagining a decommissioning site as a post-nuclear space, as the author compellingly argues, is a field of conflict and contestation, so she rightly points out that thinking about it involves taking into account socioeconomic attachments that blur the lines of past and future (memory, identity, fear, contestation, socioeconomic prosperity, and imaginations of alternative paths). This dimension of decommissioning is quite important and I would encourage the author to include a brief (a very short paragraph may be enough) discussion of the relevant literature that has recently emerged about this aspect. In particular I refer to Marissa Bell's piece on "nuclear communities" in Canada, Saraç-Lesavre's piece on nuclear attachments in New Mexico, and Orsini's recent article on nuclear decommissioning in Italy. The last article might also be useful to expand the analysis on one of the last points (line 395/396) raised about the entanglement of individual nuclear sites decommissioning projects (together with choices, possibilities, and constraints) with larger processes of waste governance and energy politics.
Lastly, I would suggest that the author rephrase the paragraph comprised between the lines 173 and 184, as it's a bit convoluted. Goertz et Al. (line 216) is not in the reference list.
I strongly recommend the publication of this article because it offers a compelling analysis of one crucial and controversial aspect of decommissioning processes: conflicts and disagreements about the very possibility of a future for decommissioning sites. Furthermore, the piece contributes to building a sorely needed comparative analysis of decommissioning regulatory regimes and practices by exploring in depth the German case (which is obviously extremely relevant).