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.

  • uniquethrowagay@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    8 days ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 days ago

      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.

      • uniquethrowagay@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 days ago

        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.

        • cley_faye@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          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.

          • uniquethrowagay@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 days 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.

            • cley_faye@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 days ago

              And you’re just gonna ignore all the shortcomings and hope they evaporate, I suppose. Nice plan you got there.

              The whole point is that this alone is a risk for the short-medium term that could have been mitigated if not for blind and outdated policies. Look at what a single nuclear power plant could produce continuously, with little variation related to time of day or weather. Saying “we can do without that” today is just foolishness, ignorance, or wilful degradation.

    • CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      8 days 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.

    • UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      8 days ago

      Building times are to be measured in decades.

      Should probably have invested more into developing their knowledge and experience then. Just have a look at China.

      Littering vast spaces of land for wind and sun power generation is hardly a better long term solution.

      • GenosseFlosse@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        8 days ago

        Unlike china, Germany has a lot of environmental and safety standards it has to meet before it can operate any large plant, and it cannot just give the contract to the lowest bidder who mixes rubbish and toxic waste into the cement als filler material…

      • uniquethrowagay@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 days ago

        Even China builds more renewable than nuclear. And I’d rather not look at authoritarian dictatorships for tips on how to handle building regulations.