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
[–] 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) (1 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?

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

Nuclear keeps us on the teet of fossils fuels for longer than switching to renewables. Nuclear takes too long to build. Renewables can come online incrementally displacing fossil fuels far sooner. It drops the rate of damage faster.

If we wait for nuclear plants that haven't even been green lot yet the accumulated damage will be massive.

[–] lumony@lemmings.world 4 points 2 days ago

Yeah. You're just showing us that you lack a fundamental understanding of how the power grid works.

Nuclear keeps us on the teet of fossils fuels for longer than switching to renewables.

It doesn't, but I'd like to see you explain how.

Nuclear takes too long to build.

No it doesn't. We still need more energy sources.

Renewables can come online incrementally displacing fossil fuels far sooner.

Our energy needs are not being met right now. I can't stress this enough: you simply do not have even a basic level of understanding about how the power grid works.

It drops the rate of damage faster.

Yeah. You're clueless.

[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago

As opposed to thinking we could replace fossil fuels with nuclear power faster than we can replace them with renewables which is obviously a totally sane belief given how large construction projects are going... /s