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

World News

45454 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
[–] friendlymessage@feddit.org 58 points 1 day ago (6 children)

FFS, people are stupid.

There was a huge hysteria about nuclear when Fukushima happened. A clear majority was for immediate action. Merkel's coalition government would have ended if she hadn't done a 180 on nuclear and decided to shut down nuclear as soon as possible, which was 2023. I was against shutting it down back then but I thought you can't go against the whole population, so I get why they did it. People didn't change their mind until 2022. Nobody talked about reversing that decision in all these years when there was actually time to reverse the decision.

Now, that the last reactor is shut down, the same people that were up in arms in 2011 are now up in arms that we don't have nuclear. Building new plants will cost billions and take decades and nuclear doesn't work well with renewables because of its inflexibility. It makes no sense at all. It was a long-term decision we can't just back away from. What's done is done.

[–] Tattorack@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago

You don't miss the water until the well runs dry.

[–] Floopquist@lemmy.org 18 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I like that you mention the point, Merkel's coalition made a full 180 turnaround. Which was an error. They could have just made a plan for phasing out the reactors until maybe 2040 or 2050. No, they had to stop them right away and now the existing plants are so gutted that they are not feasible to be rebuilt again.

Anyway, building new power plants takes centuries in Germany. So we should just focus on renewables *and storage solutions now.

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 3 points 23 hours ago

Right away being over a decade later at pretty much the end of life of those plantd without refurbishment.

[–] Realitaetsverlust@lemmy.zip 13 points 1 day ago (2 children)

nuclear doesn’t work well with renewables because of its inflexibility

Uuuuh, why wouldn't it? Nuclear can provide a steady base load for the grid while the renewables are providing the rest, filling up storages for spike times if there is an excess. Don't really see how this is a big issue.

[–] FlareShard@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The issue is nuclear reactors become more expensive the less load they have.

As we build more renewables, nuclear energy will decrease in cost efficiency as renewables and storages start handling base loads.

The problem isn't so much that it can't work, it's that it will not be cost efficient long term.

[–] aeshna_cyanea@lemm.ee 0 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

How can they start handling base loads if there is literally no sun or wind (as happens reasonably frequently). You either need a ton of storage which is its own environmental can of worms or nuclear

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 6 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Cost. You do not need much storage for a 95% renewable grid. For the last 5% nuclear baseload is still way too expensive.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

I suspect that we will utilize a gas peaker plants for the last 5% for a long time; i couldn't think of a much better option.

[–] 0tan0d@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Irs batteries. Today's car batteries become tomorrow's grid storage feed stock. Also battery tech is getting a cost decline through scaling so every year a nuclear plant isn't built the math gets better for grid storage. Also adding more batteries to existing sites is way easier.

[–] tempest@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Nuclear works well with renewables. It provides reliable base load while the renewables and batteries can be used on top of that. Plus the fuel can be sourced from friendly nations like Canada.

Also worth noting that 15 years is a long time. SMRs are starting to be built and France is planning to build a bunch of nuclear capacity in the near future which might mean the possiblity to import cheap energy or leverage the human resources from those builds.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de -3 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

in retrospect, i understand France's long-held stance around 2000 that it wants to rely mostly on nuclear. it wasn't clear, back then, how long fossil fuels would be available (it was predicted they would last another 40 years) so they thought "oh well, uranium will be available for a longer time". renewable energy wasn't an (economic) possibility at that time. now that we have cheap solar energy, i suspect the last nuclear power plant worldwide will be shut down sometime around 2040.

[–] chaogomu@lemmy.world 5 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

2040 huh?

My prediction is a record number of new plants going online in 2040.

Especially as there are literal factories being built to specifically crank out Small Modular Reactors.

We're looking at a future where every small town can have their own reactor, providing enough power for that town but not large enough to ever melt down.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

i suppose you're also thinking that's because we need steady output?

which is a fallacy; we had constant generation in the past so consumption adapted and became constant; consumption would not naturally be constant, it would be higher in the daytime.

[–] chaogomu@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Wind and solar cannot set grid frequency.

They just can't. You need a turbine to set frequency.

And yes, the grid frequency matters.

So yes, we will always need a base load. And what better way than a small modular reactor, keeping the grid local and modular.

Or we can build out so much wind and solar that we have to have massive transmission lines running across the country, and then we would still need to curtail that power during peak supply, while also not getting enough generation when solar and wind fail.

And then you still need a turbine to set the grid frequency.