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

World News

45528 readers
2757 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
[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] sexy_peach@feddit.org 7 points 3 days ago (2 children)

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.

Thankfully planning and maintaining the electricity network isn't done by people commenting on Lemmy. (btw i agree with you)

[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/10/planetary-boundaries-breached-nature-climate-stories/

We can't emit more carbon. Like really, we cannot. We have to sequester it. Gas plants still emit CO2. Nuclear is fine and works well, and doesn't emit CO2.

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I attended an engineering college for my engineering degree.

And no, we specifically discussed this about lanes and trains and buses etc. Just like we discussed nuclear energy.

How do they sequester the carbon they emit? Do you have a link to an article that can explain what you're saying? Or are you saying its carbon emissions are less than coal or gas, which is different than not emitting anything at all?

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If you wanna look into it, the term you need to search for is "life cycle assessment".

This is a kind of report usually by some kind of government agency that creates a very detailed list of materials and energy required to manufacture, transport, install, operate and maintain an installation.

This is then compared against existing electricity production systems that will be replaced by the new one to calculate how long it takes to make up the initial cost both monetarily and emissions wise.

The resulting time frame will drastically vary depending on the supply chain, location, grid capacity, storage capacity and such. The following is a plot from the linked study which combines results from many different studies. They typical lifetime of one of these turbines is 20 years, so you are looking at a ~20x payback factor if it replaces fossil generation (coal/gas/etc).

https://www.climatexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/main_report_-_life_cycle_costs_and_carbon_emissions_of_onshore_wind_power.pdf#page=43

[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

https://earth.org/nuclear-energy-carbon-emissions-lowest-among-electricity-sources-un-reports/

I'm not arguing against solar and wind. I'm arguing for nuclear in some places, due to: 1) space 2) consistency 3) low carbon emissions, and pointing out that the high cost isn't due to the technology but to regulations and legal practices that have artificially inflated the costs.