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.

  • torrentialgrain@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    127
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Due to an absolutely comical amount of disinformation on the topic. People are absolutely clueless about the potential costs in time and money.

    • RejZoR@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      20 hours ago

      That was mostly when they were rushing to shut down nuclear plants. Getting them operational again will be insane cost opposed to them keep on running like before.

        • EddoWagt@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          7 hours ago

          We’re not saving the world by always choosing the cheapest option, that’s how we got here

          • Thadrax@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 hour ago

            No one is talking about building new coal plants or similar. Comparing good low carbon options, nuclear is still very expensive.

          • Rakonat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            7 hours ago

            Exactly. If you only go by kw/euro spent then you end up tearing down wind turbines to expand coal mines which Germany has already done.

            If you go by the actual environmental cost and sustainability, specifically carbon use and land use ar square meter/kw, nuclear becomes so “cheap” you have to ask if anyone who is opposed to it cares about future generations still having a habitable planet and living in a civilization that hasn’t collapse into the pre-industrial.

            We need nuclear to be the backbone of our future same as we need wind and solar as renewables to supplement and offer quick expansion and coverage of energy needs as our demands continue to rise.

    • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      17 hours ago

      The costs in both time and money to build nuclear are due to regulations and NIMBY legal stuff, and not actually relating to the technology itself being built. If they can use some of the same locations then that should help

      • sexy_peach@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 hours ago

        The locations have all outlived their life spans already. Also there is no more expertise in Germany, the old operators went to retire. Also it would take more than a decade to obtain new nuclear fuel. Also also also

        It’s a wet dream of conservative politicians that want bribes from the electricity company ceos for implementing the worst kind of unneeded centralized power plant

        • Boppel@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          6 hours ago

          electricity conpanies in germany don’t want nuclear energy. It’s way too expensive. just look at france - you can’t do it without massive subsidies. Frsmce however is another story as their electricity company is state-owned.

    • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Building, running, maintaining and decommissioning fission plants is so unfathomably expensive on the taxpayer its not even believable. They are also super prone to war issues because they are so centralized. With a few attacks you can take out most of the energy supply of a country relying heavily on nuclear power. Good luck trying to take out all the island capable solar installations and every wind turbine.

      • BussyCat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        If someone attacks Germany’s nuclear power plants the world as we know it won’t exist because nuclear weapons will launch ravaging most of the world.

        Also you don’t need to attack every single solar panel, just the power distribution centers

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 hours ago

        It’s not expensive because they are actually particularly hard to make though. They’re expensive because we made them expensive. There’s so many requirements and restrictions on them that aren’t on other power sources. Some of that’s good, but a lot is designed by dirty energy to keep them in business. They drive up the cost of nuclear and then get to say they’re cheaper.

        • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 hours ago

          restrictions on them that aren’t on other power sources

          Yeah i wonder why that could be lmao. Nothing ever went wrong with fission power plants right?

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            21 minutes ago

            As I said, some is necessary. However, a lot is just to make it not viable to protect dirty energy. Nuclear fission is one of the safest sources of energy, including the disasters and clean energy. It’s incredibly safe, and has only gotten safer. The chance of a meltdown are damn near zero now, and even if one happens there’s little chance for significant issues.

            Meanwhile coal is spewing out radioactive waste constantly and has very little restrictions.

        • sushibowl@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Another big factor is that every plant is effectively a completely custom design. Because of how few nuclear plants are constructed, every new one tends to incorporate technological advancements to enhance safety or efficiency. The design also has to be adapted to the local climate and land layout. This makes every single plant effectively one of a kind.

          It also tends to be built by different contractors, involving different vendors and electric utilities every time. Other countries have done better here (e.g. China and France) mostly due to comprehensive government planning: plopping down lots of reactors of the same design, done by the same engineers. Although these countries are not fully escaping cost increases either.

          You are completely correct that regulation is also a big factor. Quality assurance and documentation requirements are enormously onerous. This article does a pretty decent job explaining the difficulties.

      • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        17 hours ago

        Yeah but this is for areas that don’t get enough sun or wind to meet their energy needs. The make small scale nuclear reactors as well. And cities themselves, being supplied by nuclear plants, are juicy military targets too. If a bomb lands anywhere near a city including the plant, it’s bad

        • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          17 hours ago

          Yeah but this is for areas that don’t get enough sun or wind to meet their energy needs.

          Which is almost nowhere. There can be intermittent issues, but those can be overcome with a larger network and grid-level storage.

          The make small scale nuclear reactors as well.

          Which are less efficient, so even more expensive.

          And cities themselves, being supplied by nuclear plants, are juicy military targets too. If a bomb lands anywhere near a city including the plant, it’s bad

          Not sure what your argument here is, because no matter what kind of energy production you’re using, bombing a city is always bad. But it’s much easier to cause great harm with nuclear than renewable generators.

          • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            16 hours ago

            But renewables aren’t being replaced with this, fossil fuels are. The grid level storage is significant and requires significant mining and upkeep for that, and it’s very inefficient. We need blended energy sources for safety, with a mix of water, wind, wave, solar, geothermal, and nuclear

            • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 hours ago

              No, renewables have to be replaced by nuclear. Nuclear is incredibly expensive (the most expensive form of energy we have). If you don’t run it at capacity 100% of the time, it’s even more expensive.

              All that money can either produce a small amount of energy if we go with nuclear, or a larger amount of energy if we go with renewables.

              Grid-level storage is getting more and more efficient - a couple of years ago, the combined cost of renewables + storage got smaller than the cost of nuclear. Nuclear is still getting more expensive, whereas renewables + storage is getting cheaper and cheaper.

          • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            16 hours ago

            Yes, there are, especially if you don’t want to deforest land. And wind and solar and not constant sources. A mix of sources are needed. That you havent mentioned geothermal or wave energy shows that you’re kinda out of your depth here. I’ve gone to many engineering seminars about this, we must have a mix of energy sources and we must use nuclear if our goal is to reduce or eliminate carbon emissions. Other sources of energy all emit too much carbon.

            • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 hours ago

              I’ve gone to many engineering seminars

              Wow what kinda propaganda seminars are you sitting in? Did they also tell you that “just one more lane” would fix traffic? Wind turbines recoup their entire production and installation carbon emissions in a few months. PV panels in like a year.

            • sexy_peach@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              9 hours ago

              How are you so uneducated?

              With minimal storage, gas peaker plants that only run like a day per year and a grid spanning several countries it is a breeze to have wind and solar only. Probably not even all of the above are needed.

    • Owl@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      21 hours ago

      getting back in to nuclear would be as foolish as dropping it in the first place. i swear i hate my government sometimes. a history of bad decisions.