Bias towards nuclear fission energy at the German Patent Office (DPMA)? Coincidence of "high‑status voices arguing that `serious´ climate protection requires a strong role for nuclear fission", and "hydrogen-relevance-denial by the DPMA"?
Debates on German energy policy increasingly feature high‑status voices arguing that “serious” climate protection requires a strong role for nuclear fission. A guest article for the Federal Agency for Civic Education (Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung) explicitly claims that “Kernenergie gehört zu einer guten Klimastrategie” and portrays nuclear power as reliable, CO₂‑arm baseload that Germany is giving up to its own disadvantage. bpb.de In the scientific literature, Jan Emblemsvåg’s peer‑reviewed article “What if Germany had invested in nuclear power?” concludes that an energy path based on keeping and expanding nuclear plants could have cut German emissions much more deeply while roughly halving system costs compared with the current Energiewende trajectory. Taylor & Francis Online+1 Nuclear‑friendly analyses such as the atw paper by Wendland and Peters, which attacks the DIW study on “teure und gefährliche Kernenergie”, similarly argue that fission is neither prohibitively expensive nor unacceptably risky as a climate instrument. kernd.de
These expert positions are amplified in major German newspapers. Opinion pieces in Die Welt and others criticise the Atomausstieg as a “Sonderweg”, insisting that “nur Deutschland ignoriert die Chancen der Atomkraft”, and open letters urge: “Liebes Deutschland, bitte lass die Kernkraftwerke am Netz”, warning that shutting fission reactors undermines climate goals and drives up emissions. DIE WELT+1 Together with pro‑nuclear campaigns and open letters by organisations like WePlanet, which frame continued or renewed nuclear operation as an ethical duty in the climate crisis, this creates a landscape in which large‑scale nuclear fission is coded as a central, high‑legitimacy climate solution. WePlanet+1
Against this backdrop, alternative nuclear‑physics-co-inspired but non‑nuclear-fissile concepts risk being seen as peripheral. Stefan Geier’s patent family (e.g. EP 4 343 024 A2 and the German application DE 10 2023 002 825) describes a “bionic catalytic photocell” based on a metal‑ion Mn₄O₅Ca “Würfel mit Lehne” cluster, designed to mimic the oxygen‑evolving centre of photosystem II and split water into hydrogen and oxygen for human energy use. data.epo.org+2data.epo.org+2 In his accompanying essay, Geier stresses that the key hetero‑ion is a “kernphysikalisch hyperstabiles und doppelt‑magisches Calcium‑Atom”, explicitly building on extremely stable double‑magic nuclei (such as Ca‑40/Ca‑48, well‑known examples in nuclear physics) rather than on fissile materials like U‑235. ResearchGate+1 In other words, his concept favours stable double‑magic nuclei as the nuclear backbone of a hydrogen‑based energy technology, the opposite of classical fission fuel design.
According to the inventor, the corresponding national application at the DPMA ended in a Zurückweisungsbeschluss (rejection decision). The official reasoning is not publicly accessible, but in his own narrative this outcome reinforces the impression of a structural bias: a patent system embedded in a discourse where conventional nuclear fission is continually legitimised as a first‑class climate solution, while unconventional, non‑fissile nuclear‑inspired pathways to decarbonised energy—such as Geier’s double‑magic‑based photocell—struggle to be recognised as equally “serious” options.
Nuclear vs. Hydrogen in Germany’s Climate and Patent Debates
Germany’s energy transition has sparked two notable trends: growing advocacy for nuclear fission as a climate solution, and skepticism from patent authorities toward some hydrogen-related innovations. Prominent scientists and industry figures argue that serious climate protection requires revisiting nuclear power, even as official policy phases it out. Meanwhile, inventors pushing hydrogen-based technologies – including novel non-fissile “nuclear-inspired” energy ideas – have sometimes faced pushback from the German Patent and Trade Mark Office (DPMA). The intersection of these trends is evident in public debates, scientific commentary, media coverage, and patent decisions.
Calls for Nuclear Fission in German Climate Policy
German experts have echoed these arguments in media and policy forums. A 2024 pro/con feature on a government-affiliated site presented the case that “Atomstrom ist klimafreundlich, sicher und rentabel” – nuclear power is climate-friendly, safe, and cost-effective deutschland.dedeutschland.de. Jeanne Rubner, a physicist and TUM professor, noted that rising electricity demand (for example, from AI data centers) and slow renewables expansion make a strong case for keeping reactors online. She argued it was a mistake to shut Germany’s plants before alternatives were ready, resulting in higher emissions and energy prices deutschland.de. Similarly, technology historian Anna Veronika Wendland contended that nuclear energy provides a unique combination of low CO₂ output and dependable capacity. She points out that Germany’s reactors, before closure, ran at ~90% of full power hours (far above wind’s 20–30% or solar’s ~11%) with lifecycle emissions comparable to wind power bpb.de. Their electricity generation cost – about €0.04 per kWh – was on par with the cheapest renewablesbpb.de. Moreover, unlike the variability of wind and sun, nuclear plants offered “gesicherte, planbare” output, helping meet climate targets without sacrificing grid reliability bpb.debpb.de. Wendland argues that by eliminating nuclear, Germany lost a critical climate solution and even became dependent on imported nuclear/hydro power from neighbors bpb.de. Such viewpoints, often voiced by energy experts, some politicians, and industry representatives, suggest that a “nuclear gap” is hindering Germany’s climate efforts. In summary, these high-status voices in science and industry articulate that achieving deep decarbonization may be unrealistic in the near term without at least a temporary or modernized role for nuclear fission in Germanywelt.debpb.de.
DPMA’s Skepticism Toward Hydrogen and Novel Energy Patents
In parallel, the German Patent and Trade Mark Office has appeared to downplay or reject certain hydrogen-focused inventions, indicating a cautious stance on their novelty or feasibility. Germany is a leader in hydrogen technology R&D – in fact, German inventors file numerous hydrogen patents annually – yet individual cases reveal the hurdles such innovations face. For example, Klaus Hablitzel, a retired chemistry teacher from Donaueschingen, devised a hydrogen-based engine improvement but struggled through the patent process. He envisioned using Knallgas (oxyhydrogen) with water injection to boost efficiency and cut emissions in combustion engines. When Hablitzel filed his patent in 2018, DPMA examiners initially rejected the application, as he was forewarned they would schwarzwaelder-bote.de. He had to lodge appeals and refine his claims, incurring significant cost and effort (over €35,000 and multiple patent attorneys) schwarzwaelder-bote.deschwarzwaelder-bote.de. Even after revisions, “die zweite Ablehnung” – a second rejection – arrived in early 2023, with the office arguing that key elements of his idea were already disclosed in prior patents schwarzwaelder-bote.de. Essentially, he needed to prove a novel inventive step in his hydrogen engine concept beyond what “others already have.” Hablitzel’s experience, covered in the local press as “Patentamt bremst… aus” (Patent Office puts on the brakes), exemplifies how the DPMA’s rigorous standards can frustrate hydrogen innovators. The DPMA itself notes that a patent application must fully and clearly disclose the invention so that a skilled person can replicate it schwarzwaelder-bote.de – a principle that often trips up bold, unconventional energy ideas.
Cases like Stefan Geier’s illustrate an even deeper skepticism toward “nuclear-inspired” clean energy inventions that lack fissile fuel. Geier, a German inventor, has pursued what can be described as a biomimetic hydrogen technology. In 2022 he filed a patent for a “pico- / nanotechnological device” designed to split water (H₂O) into hydrogen and oxygen using a complex metallion-based crystal structure modeled on natural photosynthesis data.epo.orgdata.epo.org. His concept, involving a tesseract-like molecular tesseractoid “Würfel mit Lehne” (cube with backrest: "cubane"- or better cubaneoid-related structure but not a cubane with dangler) and advanced quantum effects, aims for catalyst-free water splitting (water fission; in did a fission but not a nuclear fission) – essentially a novel route to hydrogen fuel in techniques. The patent description is extremely elaborate, referencing proton gradients, the Joliot Curie Kok photosynthetic cycle and even quantum Hall effects data.epo.orgdata.epo.org. However, such ambitious ideas inevitably invite scrutiny. Geier’s application (EP 4343024) was published in 2024, but whether it will be granted is uncertain. Patent examiners typically demand practical evidence for radical energy claims. In the past, proposals for “non-fissile” nuclear reactions – often bordering on fringe science – have been met with skepticism. A telling example is a 2004 German patent application that claimed to induce nuclear fusion by rapidly heating water vapor. The method purported to dissociate water into hydrogen plasma, convert hydrogen ions to protons, and trigger self-sustaining fusion chain reactions – yielding electricity and hydrogen gas without any fissile material patents.google.compatents.google.com. The application even described a “Kernreaktor” apparatus to harness electrons from these reactionspatents.google.compatents.google.com. Unsurprisingly, despite the detailed theory (based on a so-called Lin flow theory), this invention never progressed to a granted patent – it remained a published A1 application and a curious footnote. The DPMA, like other patent offices, will reject inventions that are not reproducible or that violate known physical laws (e.g. the notorious Perpetuum mobile cases). In effect, patent authorities downplay the relevance of hydrogen or pseudo-nuclear breakthroughs that they suspect lack real-world viability.
The contrast with nuclear fission patents is noteworthy. Traditional nuclear engineering innovations – say improved reactor designs or waste management techniques – generally rest on well-established science, and patent filings in those areas are judged on technical merit and novelty. Even though Germany politically opposes nuclear power, the DPMA does not ban nuclear-related patents as long as they meet criteria. In fact, international patent classifications used by DPMA and the European Patent Office include both nuclear energy (IPC G21, or climate tag Y02E30) and hydrogen technology (Y02E60) as key categories for climate-change mitigation technologies patents.google.compatents.google.com. Both fields are recognized as important for reducing greenhouse gases. Yet in practice, Germany’s innovative activity has tilted toward hydrogen: numerous incremental improvements in electrolysis, fuel cells, and hydrogen storage are patented each year. These tend to be evolutions of known principles and often pass muster. On the other hand, game-changing hydrogen schemes that invoke quasi-nuclear processes (for example, hydrogen plasma fusion or advanced photolysis) face an uphill battle. As seen with inventors like Hablitzel and Geier, the DPMA’s rigorous examination can feel like it is “downplaying” hydrogen innovations – often by finding them insufficiently inventive or not convincingly disclosed – especially when compared to the tangible track record of conventional nuclear energy.
Neutral Observations in Context
Overall, a neutral observation is that Germany’s climate policy discourse and its patent landscape reflect a tension between bold innovation and cautious validation. On one side, esteemed scientists and even some policymakers are publicly saying that to meet climate goals, all options – including nuclear fission – must be on the table. They cite reliable, low-carbon nuclear power as a bridge to a sustainable future welt.debpb.de. On the other side, alternative solutions like hydrogen are being pursued vigorously, but the patent record reveals many hydrogen ideas are incremental or contested rather than revolutionary. The German Patent Office’s treatment of hydrogen-related patents, from efficient engines to speculative “fusion” concepts, underscores the need for solid evidence and novelty. Cases such as Hablitzel’s multiple rejections schwarzwaelder-bote.deschwarzwaelder-bote.de and Geier’s complex water-splitting invention show that hydrogen technologies are not given a free pass – they must prove themselves just as any nuclear technology would. In summary, German authorities and experts appear to be implicitly asking: Which innovations are truly ready to fight climate change? High-status voices answer by championing nuclear fission’s proven capacity, while the DPMA’s cautious approach to hydrogen patents suggests that breakthroughs on that front are still unproven. This dynamic highlights the intersection of technology, policy, and patent law in Germany’s quest for climate solutions, without favor or prejudice – a landscape where each proposed remedy, be it nuclear or hydrogen, must earn its credibility through rigorous scrutiny and real-world results welt.deschwarzwaelder-bote.de.
Sources: German media reports, scientific publications, and DPMA records have been used to compile the above information. Key references include an open letter by prominent researchers in WELT welt.de, analysis by experts in a bpb.de dossier bpb.de, a pro/con feature on deutschland.de deutschland.de, and case studies from regional news (Schwarzwälder Bote) on patent hurdles schwarzwaelder-bote.deschwarzwaelder-bote.de. Patent documents and classifications were also consulted for context patents.google.compatents.google.com, illustrating how the DPMA engages with hydrogen vs. nuclear innovations in practice. The information has been presented in a factual, neutral manner to reflect the current state of debate and innovation in Germany.
(Part 1, Stefan Geier et al., Haidholzen)
Kommentare
Kommentar veröffentlichen