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.

  • Jumi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    13 hours ago

    We have an almost indefinite source of energy below our feet and almost nobody talks about. Screw nuclear, go geothermal

    • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 hours ago

      I generally agree, given that geothermal and solar keep getting cheaper, and now cost less than nuclear or are at least competitive, but nuclear plants do more than just provide energy. Where do you think medical isotopes come from?

      • Jumi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        If that’s the only point you have for nuclear power we have more in common than you think. And I’m sure there a ways to do that another specialised way.

        • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Atomic transmutation is never easy, and the only thing that really scales is a nuclear reactor. And not just any nuclear reactor will do - breeder reactors are the only ones that make it in any quantity. If you want to make this using a cyclotron or with centrifuges, a lot of the diagnoses and treatments we take for granted today will be almost completely inaccessible and only available to the very wealthy.

    • lumony@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      12 hours ago

      It’s not an either-or.

      We need as many sources of energy as possible to increase the available supply and reduce the cost.

      • chaosrider@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        I would usually accept. But looking at the cost of production and how the pricing is set (highest price sets the bar), nuclear is the worst. Its so expensive that no supplier even wants to take the grants to build it. A waste of money… building storage capacities and evolving smart grids would be better investments.

      • Jumi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Maybe Thorium reactors but not that other shit that poisons everything for millenia.

    • friendlymessage@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Geothermal energy is possible anywhere but not economical everywhere. Building wind and PV and building infrastructure to save the energy is more economical in many cases.