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.

  • BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Wait until you see the price of climate change and not moving away from fossil fuels then

    • wewbull@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Speed! The best time to give a nuclear plant a green light was about 20 years ago, as it will just be coming online now. The second best time is never, because we don’t have time to wait anymore.

      Nuclear takes a long time to build, and in all that time you’re not switching away from fossil fuels. I swear nuclear proponents are fossil fuel shills just wanting to delay the day we switch away from them.

      • BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Our largest power plant, with 6 reactors, was built in 6 years. To this day it provides us with around 6% of our global power requirements. It’s been running for 45 years, producing 32TWh per year with 0 carbon emissions.

        It’s like we could build them faster if we wanted to ? We’ve done it already, we can do it again.

        • wewbull@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          6 hours ago

          45 years would be 1980. That sounds like you’re refering to Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, but construction started in 1980, and although the first five reactors went live 5 years later the 6th reactor didn’t go live until 1996. 16 years later.

          Even so, you’re only counting construction. That plant would have been being designed for at least 5 years previous.

          And safety standards have gone up since then, in part because of it’s slightly older cousin at Chernobyl (different design, but also built in 5 years).

          • BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            6 hours ago

            I’m talking about Gravelines in France. The first reactor was plugged into the national grid 6 years after construction began. The 6th reactor in 1985.

            The EPR2 is already designed, and in service in Flamanville. Flamanville 3 took a long time because we had to rebuild our whole nuclear industry, by lack of political vision back in the 90’s-00’s.

            We’re building it again, two by two this time, and hopefully in less than half the time and budget.

    • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Ah yes, that’s why we should invest money into an expensive form of energy instead of a cheap one, that will help us displace fossil fuels!

      • lumony@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Hate to break it to you, bud, but energy is already priced according to how expensive it is to provide.

        It’s not about “this energy source vs. that energy source.” It’s about increasing the supply of available energy.

        Read a book on energy and you’ll quickly realize that as we produce more energy, we consume more. Right now, our energy needs are not being met even with fossil fuels + nuclear + renewables.

        • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 hours ago

          Hate to break it to you, but with a limited amount of money you can only increase your generation so much. Choosing a power source that’s less efficient from a monetary perspective means you can displace less fossil fuel.

          Read a book on mathematics if you don’t believe me.

    • sexy_peach@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Wait what I am 100% pro renewables…

      If nuclear somehow were the only option, I would support it. But it’s the worst option.