this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2025
326 points (96.3% liked)

World News

45416 readers
4054 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 8 points 14 hours ago (27 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.

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 10 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (12 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/

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 11 hours ago (3 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.

[–] saimen@feddit.org 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

How is a nuclear meltdown not the fault of nuclear power? Of course you can prevent it by being super careful and stuff, but it is inherent to nuclear power that it is super dangerous. What is the worst that can happen with a wind turbine? It falls, that's it.

[–] luce@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 7 hours ago

if we were to either replace all power on earth with nuclear, or replace all power on earth with wind, more people would die from- idk, falling out of wind turbines- then from deaths due to nuclear.

Fukushima had a fucking earthquake and a tsunami theiwn at it, AND the company which made it cut corners. It was still, much, much less bad than it could have been and the reactor still partially withstood a lot of damage.

In the United States at least (and i assume the rest of the world) nuclear energy is so overegulated that many reactors can have meltdowns without spelling disaster for the nearby area. Nuclear caskets (used to transport and store wastes) can withstand fucking missle strikes.

Im not going to pretend that there arent genuine issues with nuclear, such as cost and construction time(*partially caused by the overegulation), but genuine nuclear disaster has only ever resulted from the worst of human decisions combined with the worst of circumstances. Do i trust humans not to make shitty mistakes? No, not with all this overegulation, but still, even counting Fukushima and Chernobyl, more people die from wind (and especially fossil fuels) then nuclear per terawatt of electricity production.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (23 replies)