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.

  • Saleh@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 day ago

    Rising water will leach into your drinking water table.

    Using hinkley points C 60 billion Euro as reference, replacing Germanys remaining 74 GW of fossil fuels will cost more like 1200 billion euros.

    • IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      24 hours ago

      If you are burying the waste, you’d be using a mine that is below the impermeable bedrock layer. There would be no leeching at all.

      And using the most expensive project on the planet as your reference is disingenuous as best. Most other projects cost less than a third of that.

      Additionally, almost no one is ever suggesting that nuclear is a 100% replacement. Most people suggest nuclear baseload with renewables+battery for peaks.

      • Thadrax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Most people suggest nuclear baseload with renewables+battery for peaks.

        Except baseload doesn’t really exist anymore in a power grid with lots of renewables. Those renewables already produce 100% of what is required at times and those times will become more common, and small gaps can be bridged with batteries etc. The real gap with renewables is going to be those times when there is no sun and wind for days, which apparently happens only a few times a year for a week or so at a time. And building a bunch of hugely expensive power plants and then have them sit idle for 95% of the time isn’t a good plan.

      • boomzilla@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        Would, should, could:

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

        Why didn’t they bury it in impermeable bedrock then in this case. It will cost the taxpayer 3.7 billion to evacuate the rusty and leaky containers there. Which will probably start in 2033 and last decades. If they don’t get it right the waste will probably leak into groundwater. That was already stated in a report from 1979 but declared as unscientific by managers of the facilitiy. The building time for Olkiluotos Onkalo was 20 years. You can search for other “End Storages” of nuclear waste around the world. Not many of them are even operating now. You can also look up facilities in Arizona making the same mistake as Germany in storing the waste in salt mines. You can also lookup the devastating effects of Uranium mining for the environment (e.g. in Navajo land).

        Here’s your baseload argument debunked:

        “The beauty of these approaches is that they address one of nuclear power’s biggest weaknesses: the fact that it can only generate electricity in large, all-or-nothing chunks. Many of the above solutions are distributed across the grid, meaning that the simultaneous failure of a few units need not bring down the entire electric grid.”.

        Yesterday 58% of the energy in Germany came from renewables. It briefly had a day in January when renewables surpassed 100% of its energy demand. Energy is sold between the member states of the EU. Germany regularily imports about 2-5% of its energy per year. Not because they can’t generate the baseload via coal or gas but because it’s cheaper to buy. Only 0.5% of that imported energy comes from nuclear. The rest is also from renewables.

        A bit offtopic but related: Mr. Habeck the previous much scolded economy minister had a big part in the rise of renewables and his further plans would have been to build out hydrogen production via renewables to act as a future CO2 neutral baseload capacity. Now Germany is in the hands of old white men again who want to burn the world. Just yesterday a headline was that the conservatives want to restrict the influence of the buero against monopolies in pursuing suspected cases of price agreements between fossil fuel cooperations.

      • Saleh@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        23 hours ago

        Yeah. The impermeable bedrock that is readily available in Germany. That is why they are searching for a suitable and politically enforceable place since more than 50 years…