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.

  • Katzimir@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    12 days ago

    I have been working in decomissioning npps in germany for over a decade now which is why I feel so strongly about the knee-jerk conservative BS. no, there are not -a million ways- to make waste from nuclear power plants safe. even material released from regulations (concrete from decomissioned buildings for example or soil from the ground) has some residual radioactive particles and just like alcohol in pregnancies: there is no safe amount of exposure to radiation, just a lower risk of provoking potentially fatal genetic mutation that european regulators deem acceptable. but that in and of itself is not really problematic. It is just that we cannot assume ideal conditions for running these plants. while relatively safe during a well monitored and maintained period in the power producing state of a npp that changes radically if things go south. Just look at what happened to the zhaporizhia powerplant in ukraine they actively attacked a nuclear site! And all the meticulous precautions go out the window if a bunch of rogues decide to be stupid - just because. and tbf whatever mess the release of large amounts of radioactive particles does to our environment, economy and society i would rather not find out. as others have laid out here, there are safer and better suiting alternatives that are not coal.

    • relic_@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      12 days ago

      This is just straight up fear mongering. Say what you will about the economics, but the idea that there’s no safe amount of radiation is ridiculous (we don’t know, but presumably it’s okay in some amounts since you’re getting radiation doses every day even not living near anything nuclear).

      The idea that NPPs are some unsafe technology just waiting to explode is dramatic and untrue.

      • wewbull@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        12 days ago

        The idea that NPPs are some unsafe technology just waiting to explode is dramatic and untrue.

        You’re the first person to mention exploding here. GP was saying that they make for a good target in war time to turn into a dirty bomb, either intentionally or not.

        …but the idea that there’s no safe amount of radiation is ridiculous (we don’t know, but presumably it’s okay in some amounts since you’re getting radiation doses every day even not living near anything nuclear).

        “We don’t know”??? Sorry, but we do know.

        There’s no 100% safe level because any level carries some risk. Higher levels means higher risk.

        Background radiation has some risk, but it’s a risk we accept. X-rays, plane flights, etc all have increased risk (hence people exposed to lots of x-rays wearing leads) but we accept them. Material from decommissioned nuclear plants is way higher on this scale.

        Nuclear power has downsides as well as positives. Depending on your perspective (e.g. do you work cleaning up the aftermath, or just benefitting from the energy) one will outweigh the other.

        • relic_@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          12 days ago

          Okay I didn’t understand OPs point I suppose. Worth nothing that they are designed to withstand airplane hits.

          There’s no 100% safe level because any level carries some risk.

          Actually we don’t know that and there’s no valid empirical evidence to support that claim. We only have data at moderate to high levels. There’s a big gap between walked passed a container of level waste and got impacted by a nuclear destination.

    • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      12 days ago

      there is no safe amount of exposure to radiation,

      Here’s how I know you’re a lying piece of shit.

      There is literally a massive, unshielded nuclear reactor in the sky every single day.

      We ARE nuclear waste.

      • Katzimir@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        12 days ago

        No need for name calling. I am an engineer specialized in radiation protection. Hell i actively work at nuclear sites on a daily basis. why would i lie? the underlying principle of the ‘acceptable risk’ i am talking about is called ‘alara’ - as low as reasonably achievable.

        on another note: i am convinced that Staying uneducated and even actively manipulating those who dont know better is ridiculously destructive to our society. Please don’t do that.

        • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          12 days ago

          So as an engineer myself, airplanes are vastly more dangerous than nuclear power.

          Cars even more so.

          The issue is regulation, but the US has never had a nuclear accident that caused deaths in our history, and neither has France which is basically running half of Europe off its nuclear plants.

          This is fear-mongering, plain and simple.

          Russia obviously has killed many people, but they killed millions of people from not having food, they don’t consider death a risk, it’s just part of life.

          The rest of the world? Engineers are easily capable of making the craziest things safe, again, see air-travel which has more risks by orders of magnitude.

          Early planes crashed all the time, and early reactor designs were very dangerous.

          That’s why us engineers are so absolutely awesome, we don’t stop making things better.