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
    23
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    I wonder how the answers would be if following conditions are added:

    • The permanent waste storage facility is built within 10 km of your place of living.
    • In order to finance the significantly more expensive nuclear power you have to pay an extra income tax of 5% for the next 50 years.
    • Between June and September you will not be provided running water, but have to buy bottled water, so cooling capacities for the reactors are insured even in 37°C+ weather.
    • During the transition period until the reactors are ready your electricity price is doubled in order to finance importing electricity from other countries, rather than building cheaper renewables.
    • IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      9 hours ago
      • 10 km which direction? If it’s buried 1km down, you can stick it directly below my home for all I care.

      • not sure who told you that nuclear reactors cost half a trillion dollars to build, or are you thinking they would be building 30+ reactors?

      • closed loop cooling of reactors is a thing. There’s zero reason to ever have drinking water restrictions.

      • this doesn’t make sense. Why would the price of electricity double to maintain the status quo? I thought you were paying for the reactors out of income taxes?

      Long story short, there’s plenty of valid reasons to argue against nuclear power. Use those reasons, not made up bullshit.

      • ramble81@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 hours ago

        It’s just more FUD trying to keep away from it. We’re still a ways off of 100% renewables and nuclear can very much help fill in that gap without reliance on foreign oil or fossil fuels.

        • Nuclear can’t be built fast enough to fill the gap. It’s likely better long-term to invest in additional renewables + gas plants instead, until the gas can be phased out as well. It’s still fossil for a bit, but since nuclear nearly always is over time and well beyond budget, it’s likely to be a net greener option. Gas is pretty cheap and above all very flexible, making it more suitable for baseline power than nuclear.

      • knatschus@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 hours ago

        It’s not made up, the main voice for nuclear has ruled out a permanent waste storage in his state if the scientists would recommend it as the best option in the country.

      • Saleh@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        9 hours 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
          5
          ·
          8 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.

          • Saleh@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            7 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…