this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2025
671 points (96.0% liked)

World News

45455 readers
3271 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
[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

No, renewables have to be replaced by nuclear. Nuclear is incredibly expensive (the most expensive form of energy we have). If you don't run it at capacity 100% of the time, it's even more expensive.

All that money can either produce a small amount of energy if we go with nuclear, or a larger amount of energy if we go with renewables.

Grid-level storage is getting more and more efficient - a couple of years ago, the combined cost of renewables + storage got smaller than the cost of nuclear. Nuclear is still getting more expensive, whereas renewables + storage is getting cheaper and cheaper.

[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 3 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

That's because nuclear is arbitrarily forced to be expensive due to regulations and legal stuff. If that wasn't included in the price itself, it would be significantly cheaper. However, nuclear took such a big hit politically that it increased costs as less plants were built. It's not so much that renewables are per se cheaper, but rather than nuclear gets artifically inflated. Further, I'm not opposed to renewables, I just think nuclear is needed in addition to renewables since it is better for carbon emissions and we have a carbon issue. It also saves on space where renewables can cause greater environmental impact in terms of taking up space or wildlife fatalities.

Again, weird you don't mention wave or geothermal at all as renewables that have access to near constant power generation.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 0 points 21 hours ago

Sure, nuclear could be much cheaper! But it would also be much less safe, because all the regulations and "legal stuff" are what forces the people running the plant to run it in a safe way. The same goes for renewables, but if renewables fail, they don't contaminate the surrounding area for decades or centuries, so there are far fewer of these regulations. If you disagree, I challenge you to provide examples of unnecessary regulations that make nuclear so much more expensive. Show us the numbers.

It also saves on space where renewables can cause greater environmental impact in terms of taking up space or wildlife fatalities.

There are many great ways to deploy renewables so they support the environment. Have you looked at the environmental impact of the mining required for nuclear plants? The impact they have on the rivers they use for cooling, and so on?

Again, weird you don’t mention wave or geothermal at all as renewables that have access to near constant power generation.

It's pretty weird that "renewables" somehow doesn't include those for you.