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

World News

45720 readers
2469 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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] torrentialgrain@lemm.ee 130 points 1 week ago (6 children)

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 39 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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.

[–] torrentialgrain@lemm.ee 28 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Even before nuclear power was the most expensive type in the energy mix iirc.

[–] EddoWagt@feddit.nl 15 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] glowing_hans@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

yes even coal is "cheaper" than nuclear once you disregard polution

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 22 points 1 week ago (28 children)

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.

load more comments (28 replies)
[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] friendlymessage@feddit.org 64 points 1 week ago (17 children)

FFS, people are stupid.

There was a huge hysteria about nuclear when Fukushima happened. A clear majority was for immediate action. Merkel's coalition government would have ended if she hadn't done a 180 on nuclear and decided to shut down nuclear as soon as possible, which was 2023. I was against shutting it down back then but I thought you can't go against the whole population, so I get why they did it. People didn't change their mind until 2022. Nobody talked about reversing that decision in all these years when there was actually time to reverse the decision.

Now, that the last reactor is shut down, the same people that were up in arms in 2011 are now up in arms that we don't have nuclear. Building new plants will cost billions and take decades and nuclear doesn't work well with renewables because of its inflexibility. It makes no sense at all. It was a long-term decision we can't just back away from. What's done is done.

[–] Floopquist@lemmy.org 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I like that you mention the point, Merkel's coalition made a full 180 turnaround. Which was an error. They could have just made a plan for phasing out the reactors until maybe 2040 or 2050. No, they had to stop them right away and now the existing plants are so gutted that they are not feasible to be rebuilt again.

Anyway, building new power plants takes centuries in Germany. So we should just focus on renewables *and storage solutions now.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Realitaetsverlust@lemmy.zip 15 points 1 week ago (4 children)

nuclear doesn’t work well with renewables because of its inflexibility

Uuuuh, why wouldn't it? Nuclear can provide a steady base load for the grid while the renewables are providing the rest, filling up storages for spike times if there is an excess. Don't really see how this is a big issue.

[–] FlareShard@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The issue is nuclear reactors become more expensive the less load they have.

As we build more renewables, nuclear energy will decrease in cost efficiency as renewables and storages start handling base loads.

The problem isn't so much that it can't work, it's that it will not be cost efficient long term.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] tempest@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Nuclear works well with renewables. It provides reliable base load while the renewables and batteries can be used on top of that. Plus the fuel can be sourced from friendly nations like Canada.

Also worth noting that 15 years is a long time. SMRs are starting to be built and France is planning to build a bunch of nuclear capacity in the near future which might mean the possiblity to import cheap energy or leverage the human resources from those builds.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[–] Halcyon@discuss.tchncs.de 38 points 1 week ago (3 children)

There's nothing more to come. Nuclear power is slow and uneconomical.

Joe Kaeser, Chairman of the Supervisory Board of Siemens Energy: "There isn't a single nuclear power plant in the world that makes economic sense," he said on the ARD program Maischberger on November 27, 2024.

https://www.tagesschau.de/faktenfinder/farbebekennen-weidel-faktencheck-100.html?at_medium=mastodon

A fact check by the Fraunhofer Institute on nuclear energy states: "For example, around €2.5 billion would have to be raised to cover the nuclear waste generated. Overall, considerable short-term investments would be required." (for the construction of a new power plant)

https://www.ikts.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ikts/abteilungen/umwelt_und_verfahrenstechnik/technologieoekonomik_nachhaltigkeitsanalyse/oekonomische_analyse_nachhaltigkeit/241030_Fraunhofer-Faktencheck_Kernenergie.pdf

[–] Quatlicopatlix@feddit.org 14 points 1 week ago

Also the time it would take to build new power plants and get them to run would be something lile 20-25 years. We dont have that much time to get a grip on climate change so it doesnt matter annyways. Either we get 100% renewables untill then or we are fucked annyways.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] einkorn@feddit.org 35 points 1 week ago

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.

SPD, Greens, the power industry, economists ... basically everyone except the guys who wouldn't want a nuclear plant or waste dump next to them anyway: Söder Challenge

[–] fx242@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago

Southern countries (Spain and Portugal) have a lot of wind and hydro (and soon solar) power to spare. But somehow some "actors" are cutting them off from the rest of the European power grid. Looking at you France, your greedy bastards!

[–] ArchmageAzor@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago (61 children)

There's no good reason to be against nuclear power. It's green, it's safe, it's incredibly efficient, the fuel is virtually infinite, and the waste can be processed in a million different ways to make it not dangerous.

[–] alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com 30 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Even Japan is restarting their reactors

Solar and wind are great, but major industrialized nations will need some nuclear capacity.

It's going to happen sooner or later.

The question is just about how long we delay it, with extra emissions and economic depression in the mean time.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago (2 children)

It's more expensive than the alternatives, and comes with additional downsides. There is no good reason to be pro nuclear, unless you need a lot of power for a long time in a tight space. So a ship or a space station for example.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] yyprum@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 week ago (6 children)

I'm not the kind to hate on nuclear power itself, but let's not assume it's perfect either. There are good reasons against nuclear power, its just not the usual reasons raised by people.

The cost and time effort needed for building one plant is one drawback.

The fact that you can't say "let's turn off the nuclear reactor now that we have enough renewables and later today we start it again when the sunlight is over". It's a terrible energy source to supply for extra demand needed without perfect planning.

Nowadays, nuclear is not so worth it in general, not because of fearmongering about the dangers (an old plant badly upkept is a danger, independent of what energy source you use, but specially for nuclear plants). Ideally a combination of different renewables would be best, with some energy storage to be used as backup, plus proper sharing of the resources between different places. There's always sun somewhere, there's always wind somewhere, ...

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (58 replies)
[–] Katzimir@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 1 week ago (8 children)

I have been working in decomissioning npps in germany for over a decade now which is why I feel so strongly about the knee-jerk conservative BS. no, there are not -a million ways- to make waste from nuclear power plants safe. even material released from regulations (concrete from decomissioned buildings for example or soil from the ground) has some residual radioactive particles and just like alcohol in pregnancies: there is no safe amount of exposure to radiation, just a lower risk of provoking potentially fatal genetic mutation that european regulators deem acceptable. but that in and of itself is not really problematic. It is just that we cannot assume ideal conditions for running these plants. while relatively safe during a well monitored and maintained period in the power producing state of a npp that changes radically if things go south. Just look at what happened to the zhaporizhia powerplant in ukraine they actively attacked a nuclear site! And all the meticulous precautions go out the window if a bunch of rogues decide to be stupid - just because. and tbf whatever mess the release of large amounts of radioactive particles does to our environment, economy and society i would rather not find out. as others have laid out here, there are safer and better suiting alternatives that are not coal.

[–] relic_@lemm.ee 17 points 1 week ago (6 children)

This is just straight up fear mongering. Say what you will about the economics, but the idea that there's no safe amount of radiation is ridiculous (we don't know, but presumably it's okay in some amounts since you're getting radiation doses every day even not living near anything nuclear).

The idea that NPPs are some unsafe technology just waiting to explode is dramatic and untrue.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] xxd@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

It's really sad to see that evidently more than half of the german population have an opinion on something which they have little to no understanding of. It's frustrating what misinformation can achieve.

Nuclear power might work for some nations, but there is just no way it makes sense in germany. All previous plants are in dire need of renovation and will be hugely expensive to bring back up and running, and a new one is just as overly optimistic, as major construction projects routinely go far over budget here, and nuclear energy is already not price competitive with renewables. Nobody wants waste storage, let alone a power plant near them, and it would take years until a plant is even producing energy. By that time, it might already be redundant, because renewables and energy storage will be cheaper and more ubiquitous. there is just no way nuclear power makes sense for germany.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Alaknar@lemm.ee 10 points 1 week ago

Killing nuclear energy in Germany was the greatest success of FSB up to the point of planting an asset right in the middle of the Oval Office.

[–] intheformbelow@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Germany shot itself in the foot when it turned away from nuclear...

[–] uniquethrowagay@feddit.org 9 points 1 week ago (9 children)

No. Take a good look at France and their nuclear strategy. Both maintaining old reactors and building new ones is extremely costly. Building times are to be measured in decades. Nuclear power is not economically viable nor is it a solution to the climate catastrophe.

Returning to nuclear power in Germany is nothing but a pointless waste of tax money.

[–] cley_faye@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Keep looking at things from a money perspective and the solution become obvious : kill everyone and be done with it.

Today, nuclear energy is a reasonably safe, efficient source of energy. Is it the energy of the future ? Probably not. But is it an efficient option for smoothing the grid while planting renewable all around it? It's definitely better than the other alternatives. Does it cost money to develop? Sure. Everything costs money. But there are benefits that won't show up in an accounting book that can't be brushed aside.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 week ago

One way or another you need grid-scale turbines to maintain grid frequency. Solar power can't set frequency and wind power is too variable, so power grids use some sort of turbine to do it.

Nuclear reactors are also necessary to generate things like medical isotopes and tritium for industrial processes, and fusion research. Someone, somewhere on Earth needs to keep their fission reactors going.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›