this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2025
678 points (95.9% liked)

World News

45492 readers
4532 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 [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


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
[–] [email protected] 63 points 2 days ago (16 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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

You don't miss the water until the well runs dry.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days 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)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 days ago (2 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.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 days 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)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Cost. You do not need much storage for a 95% renewable grid. For the last 5% nuclear baseload is still way too expensive.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days 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 (12 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

I'll just comment about one thing that keeps popping up in the discussions: grid-level storage. There is no such thing yet really that would last a full day cycle, and the 100MW or so units we are building are mostly for frequency stabilization and for buying enough time to turn on a base-load plant when the renewables drop out. I'm not arguing against storage - it is absolutely needed.

The problem is the scale, which people don't seem to get. Largest amount of energy we can currently repeatedly store and release is with pumped hydro, and the locations where this is possible are few and far between. Once the batteries reach this level-of-capacity, then we have a possibility to use them as grid-level storage that lasts a few days instead of hours.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

just not true.innofact can f off. if you keep asking the old people, you will get old people answers.

when confronting the asked ppl with the numbers it costs to build a new one they all dont want a new one. not to mention the insurance for a plant. and from ukraine war we all learned nuclear ia stupid.

or go ask any of those fuckwits if we can store the waste where they live. numbers prove that around the plants the number of kids with cancer did indeed exceed all expections.

NOBODY wants a plant or the waste anywhere close to where they live.

"would you like cheap clean nucular(!) energy"

or

"would you like a powerplant and final storage near you"?

fuck innofacts hate campaign.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

numbers prove that around the plants the number of kids with cancer did indeed exceed all expections.

Do you have a source on this? Not to be contrarian, I've just never heard this to be the case.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

from ukraine war we all learned nuclear ia stupid.

Isn't that what prompted this - Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons, and then everyone needing an energy source that isn't Putin?

"would you like a powerplant and final storage near you"?

Why would they put final storage near humans and not inside a mountain or something?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 hours ago

ask the dutch and the swiss who plan to out them next to the german border. dutch dont have mountains to be fair.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 day 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!

[–] [email protected] 38 points 2 days 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

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 days 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)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago (7 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What do you mean? The cost of an old nuclear reactors' MWh is 40-50€, that's really competitive.

And unlike solar and wind, it produces anytime. As a French person, not only do I think we were right to build them in the first place, I'm annoyed we stopped in the 2000s after the Chernobyl scare campaign, it's safer than Germany's coal, which also produces radioactive waste and isn't properly regulated, unlike nuclear.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Look at the desaster that is Flamanville 3, for instance.

The cour de comptes is pretty clear about it, too: https://www.ccomptes.fr/sites/default/files/2025-01/20250114-La-filiere-EPR%20-une-dynamique-nouvelle-des-risques-persistants_0.pdf

I agree that coal is important to phase out, even moreso than nuclear power. Germany was wrong to leave nuclear before coal.
But building new reactors is an utter waste of time and money.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 hours ago

I have two answers to give you.

  • Flamanville is a new generation of reactor that we are testing out after regretfully stopping the large-scale production of reactors in France. Therefore the welding sector had been lacking work for 20 years, many retiring. The same issue goes for many other highly-specialized skills in the field. Americans had to be brought in to fill in for these positions, at high cost. So the left hadn't been corrupted by Russia into being against nuclear power in the first place, Flamanville would like gone about as well as developing a fundamentally different design can. I will grant you, however, that this isn't the design I would have liked to see deployed: France used to be developing the Phoénix and SuperPhénix fast neutron reactors until protesters made them stop. These kinds of reactors are cleaner, more fuel-efficient (by several orders of magnitude!), some variants can even consume previous nuclear waste, although I don't think these two French designs could. These would have been wonderful to have access to. Russia and China have already developed these designs, in large parts with our researchers when they lost their jobs, and we'll eventually just buy them from them again. Nice plan.

  • What would you replace these with? Batteries? Once again? Coal? Renewables? How would you deal when, all over Europe, every winter, there are weeks on end with next to no wind nor sun? Should we create new mountain ranges and rivers to store more energy hydraulically? Shift demand? Nuclear is the worst system except for all the others.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago (1 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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Power to gas, water pumps, heat storage and battery storage are viable alternatives. There are many days already where we over produce green energy. Why sink hundreds of billions into nuclear plants when we could use the energy we already produce instead?

Nuclear power is all but efficient.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

You keep seeing these as "alternatives", despite the shortcomings.

I say they are complimentary, and as far as providing power to address these shortcomings, nuclear power is a good solution. How can you look at something that can single-handedly address all power requirements in some area, while providing supports to other, and say "nah", seriously.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 hours ago

I can say that because we neither have the time nor the money to sink it into nuclear plants. We have green tech. It's cheap, we're building capacity like crazy.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day 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 (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 129 points 3 days ago (43 children)

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

load more comments (43 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 days 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.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 days 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)
load more comments
view more: next ›