this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2025
683 points (96.0% liked)

World News

45609 readers
3302 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

A new Innofact poll shows 55% of Germans support returning to nuclear power, a divisive issue influencing coalition talks between the CDU/CSU and SPD.

While 36% oppose the shift, support is strongest among men and in southern and eastern Germany.

About 22% favor restarting recently closed reactors; 32% support building new ones.

Despite nuclear support, 57% still back investment in renewables. The CDU/CSU is exploring feasibility, but the SPD and Greens remain firmly against reversing the nuclear phase-out, citing stability and past policy shifts.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Saleh@feddit.org 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (22 children)

I wonder how the answers would be if following conditions are added:

  • The permanent waste storage facility is built within 10 km of your place of living.
  • In order to finance the significantly more expensive nuclear power you have to pay an extra income tax of 5% for the next 50 years.
  • Between June and September you will not be provided running water, but have to buy bottled water, so cooling capacities for the reactors are insured even in 37°C+ weather.
  • During the transition period until the reactors are ready your electricity price is doubled in order to finance importing electricity from other countries, rather than building cheaper renewables.
[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 27 points 6 days ago (20 children)
  • 10 km which direction? If it's buried 1km down, you can stick it directly below my home for all I care.

  • not sure who told you that nuclear reactors cost half a trillion dollars to build, or are you thinking they would be building 30+ reactors?

  • closed loop cooling of reactors is a thing. There's zero reason to ever have drinking water restrictions.

  • this doesn't make sense. Why would the price of electricity double to maintain the status quo? I thought you were paying for the reactors out of income taxes?

Long story short, there's plenty of valid reasons to argue against nuclear power. Use those reasons, not made up bullshit.

[–] ramble81@lemm.ee 16 points 6 days ago (3 children)

It’s just more FUD trying to keep away from it. We’re still a ways off of 100% renewables and nuclear can very much help fill in that gap without reliance on foreign oil or fossil fuels.

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 9 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Nuclear can't be built fast enough to fill the gap. It's likely better long-term to invest in additional renewables + gas plants instead, until the gas can be phased out as well. It's still fossil for a bit, but since nuclear nearly always is over time and well beyond budget, it's likely to be a net greener option. Gas is pretty cheap and above all very flexible, making it more suitable for baseline power than nuclear.

[–] sensiblepuffin@lemmy.funami.tech -1 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Which is why they should never have been decommissioned in the first place.

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Those plants were very old and already had their lifespan extended a couple times (for a lot of money). Ultimately they were decommissioned before the next end-of-life date, which perhaps was a bit early, but keeping them open indefinitely just wasn't feasible.

Consider the downtime if they had decommissioned with the idea of building a new plant in the future. The future would look much less uncertain when it comes to energy needs.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

So we made a mistake, and to make up for it, we should make another one?

[–] sensiblepuffin@lemmy.funami.tech 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

We made a mistake, and to make up for it, we should right the mistake. Unbelievable the way people's brains just switch off when it comes to nuclear power.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah, people just think "nuclear = good" without considering the time to build new reactors, the economic efficiency, and similar factors.

[–] sensiblepuffin@lemmy.funami.tech 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

It's true. People also discount nuclear because it's a scary word. We should be researching any and all renewables, or we're all going to have a very bad few decades (if we make it that far).

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago

Sure, I'm not against research! But I am against diverting investments from renewables to nuclear, because this unavoidably slows down fossil phaseout.

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 1 points 4 days ago

plants take an extremely long time to become operaitonal, also face regulatory issues, plus very expensive. 5-10years, and then you need to hire people.

[–] sexy_peach@feddit.org 2 points 5 days ago

How can nuclear fill that gap. Please explain

load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)