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

World News

45528 readers
3746 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
[–] ArchmageAzor@lemmy.world 17 points 3 days ago (11 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 3 days ago (2 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.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 2 points 2 days ago

Japan doesn't have a huge amount of choice in energy generation. Off shore wind doesn't work as the water is too deep. On shore wind doesn't have the space or geography either. Solar works, but their weather isn't ideal. Geothermal...possibly being near fault lines but their not like Iceland with a small population to supply. I believe locations for hydro are limited too.

Nuclear gives them energy independence and fits.

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

This exactly. You need a reliable source of fuel for the baseline, which is where nuclear energy can supplant fossil fuels instead of or in addition to relying on batteries.

[–] knatschus@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

No, nuclear is awful as a baseline since you can't turn it off and back on quickly

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 17 points 3 days ago

You're absolutely correct, and few people realise this. They think "baseline = stable power", but that's not what you need. You need a quick and cheap way to scale up production when renewables don't produce enough. On a sunny, windy day, renewables already produce more than 100% of needs in some countries. At that point, the 'baseline' needs to shut down so that this cheap energy can be used instead. The baseline really is a stable base demand, but the supply has to be very flexible instead (due to the relative instability of solar and wind, the cheapest sources available).

Nuclear reactors can shut down quite quickly these days, but starting them back up is slow. But worse, nuclear is quite expensive, and maintaining a plant in standby mode not producing anything is just not economically feasible. Ergo, nuclear is terrible for a baseline power source (bar any future technological breakthroughs).

[–] UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world 21 points 3 days 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 2 days ago (1 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, ...

[–] lumony@lemmings.world 7 points 2 days ago (2 children)

It's not perfect, but to forego nuclear energy while still burning fossil fuels is retarded.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Nobody is arguing for fossil fuels here.

[–] lumony@lemmings.world 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

So if our energy needs are not being met even while burning fossil fuels, why would you argue against nuclear energy which further reduces the supply of available energy?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lumony@lemmings.world 5 points 2 days ago

There’s no good reason to be against nuclear power.

Ahh, you gotta keep in mind: useful idiots.

Well yes there is a very good argument against nuclear and that is that it replaces solar energy.

solar energy might have been expensive in the past but now it's the cheapest form of energy in history. we needed an absence of nuclear in the past to have a motivation to develop green, safe, efficient energy. and solar is the best way to do that.

i also ask you to consider the future. solar energy gets cheaper the more is deployed of it, so it will get even cheaper in the future. we have seen enormous price drops for transistors (computers) in the past, and solar panels are semiconductors, just like transistors are semiconductors. who says that we wouldn't also see similar price drops for solar energy in the future? maybe solar panels will be cheap as paper in the future.

[–] Halcyon@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

It's incredibly expensive when all costs over the entire construction period, operating period, dismantling period and storage period for nuclear waste are taken into account.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

As for coal, it's even more expensive when it kills off the planet.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lumony@lemmings.world 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

How does the cost compare to the starting and operating a coal mine?

What about oil wells and refineries?

[–] Halcyon@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 days ago

We've got other alternatives. I was not proposing to build coal mines.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

There’s nothing green, cheap, or safe about nuclear power. We’ve had three meltdowns already and two of them have ruined their surrounding environments:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Mining for fuel ruins the water table:

A Uranium-Mining Boom Is Sweeping Through Texas (contaminating the water table) https://www.wired.com/story/a-uranium-mining-boom-is-sweeping-through-texas-nuclear-energy/

Waste disposal, storage, and reprocessing are prohibitively expensive:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rethinking-nuclear-fuel-recycling/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rethinking-nuclear-fuel-recycling/

[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 25 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Now list all the fossil fuels related incidents.

Nuclear + renewables is the way to go to stop the climate crisis in the foreseeable future.

[–] alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 2 days ago (25 children)

People really don't understand that climate change is worse for life on this planet than a million Fukushima accidents.

[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

And ironically enough, Fukushima and Chernobyl have not been that bad for plant and animal life. The area around Chernobyl is thriving because most humans are gone.

Sources: https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-chernobyl-has-become-unexpected-haven-wildlife

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/060418-chernobyl-wildlife-thirty-year-anniversary-science

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It also caused a bunch of Russian soldiers to get sick because they dug holes in the ground. It isn't a nuclear paradise, and I'm not interested in Chernobyl-grown food, but it isn't a complete wasteland, either.

[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I was talking specifically about plant and animal life.

It's obviously not a paradise, but what I mean is, ionising radiation is literally less harmful to them than human presence. That's pretty bonkers to think about.
Leave that zone alone, let nature take over again and make it a monument to human hubris.

I don't think I talked about growing food in irradiated ground though? But, we currently are growing food in polluted ground thanks to fossil fuels (microplastics, coal dust, oil leaks, fracking in some backwards ass countries, etc.).

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago

So how are burrowing animals doing? I've seen pretty pictures of deer and trees, how are the rabbits and foxes? What are their lifespans compared to those in other regions?

Just because the animals don't look like cutscenes from The 100 doesn't mean their life is idyllic, or even better than elsewhere. And all those animals are eating food grown in irradiated ground. Now, whether that's better or worse than microplastics and fossil fuel waste and leakage is another interesting question.

load more comments (24 replies)
[–] lumony@lemmings.world 6 points 2 days ago

Let's see here... nuclear meltdowns have damaged the environments around the few plants that have experienced them.

Burning fossil fuels has damaged our entire planet...

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 3 days ago (5 children)

Three Mile Island was a partial meltdown, which may sound close to an actual meltdown, it's not even close in terms of danger.

Fukushima failed because the plants were old and not properly upkept. Had they followed the guidelines for keeping the plant maintained, it would not have happened.

That's not really the fault of nuclear power.

Chernobyl was also partially caused by lack of adherence to safety measures, but also faulty plant design.

I'd say, being generous, only one of those three events says anything about the safety of nuclear power, and even then, we have come a very long way.

So one event... Ever.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (8 children)

Chernobyl shouldn't have happened due to safety measures, yet it did. Fukushima shouldn't have happened, yet it did. The common denominator is human error, but guess who'll be running any other nuclear power plants? Not beavers.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)