German poll: Majority for return to nuclear energy
-
Well, good news, because I'm not the one saying it. That's coming from our Transmission Operator. Everything is detailed in their 992 page report:
Well our power providers have different claims, but I would not trust either. They obviously have their own goals.
-
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.
Southern countries (Spain and Portugal) have a lot of wind and hydro (and soon solar) power to spare.
But somehow some "actors" are cutting them off from the rest of the European power grid.
Looking at you France, your greedy bastards! -
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.
the idea that there's no safe amount of radiation is ridiculous
Except that's literally the current model used by scientific organisations: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model
-
the idea that there's no safe amount of radiation is ridiculous
Except that's literally the current model used by scientific organisations: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model
The model assumes a linear relationship between dose and health effects, even for very low doses where biological effects are more difficult to observe. The LNT model implies that all exposure to ionizing radiation is harmful, regardless of how low the dose is, and that the effect is cumulative over lifetime.
Emphasis mine. Sure that's a valid model, but not backed up by concrete empirical evidence.
-
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.
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.
-
Nuclear works well with fucking nothing because it doesn't work... because it's just too fucking expensive, has to be shut down when it's too hot and is so dangerous you can't even find insurance. Base load can be provided by hydro, gas (which can be sourced sustainably) or batteries, all of which is cheaper, less dangerous and more easily available than nuclear.
Well its going to get more expensive relative as well as oil prices fall globally due to recession. But then we will hit another energy shortage and it will become cheaper, which is why France started building nuclear in the 1970s to begin with.
-
I’ve gone to many engineering seminars
Wow what kinda propaganda seminars are you sitting in? Did they also tell you that "just one more lane" would fix traffic?
Wind turbines recoup their entire production and installation carbon emissions in a few months. PV panels in like a year.I attended an engineering college for my engineering degree.
-
The sabotage of solar and wind energy by Altmaier during the CDU government has had a bigger impact than the removal of the few percent of power we got from nuclear. Not to mention that nuclear fuel has the exact same problems as fossil fuels in that major sources of nuclear fuel are in Russia.
You guys have your heads so far up your asses, billions of subsidies for renewables were "sabotage".
If only even more billions would have been thrown against it, surely then it would have worked.
German anti-nuclear religion is so persistent and dogmatic, I'd rather debate the Taliban on Islam.
Luckily the smart Germans are changing course, as polls continue to show.
-
55% is a small majority. But nothing to turn a train around. Things are set in motion.
55% is a small majority
Laughs in Brexit
-
How are you so uneducated?
With minimal storage, gas peaker plants that only run like a day per year and a grid spanning several countries it is a breeze to have wind and solar only. Probably not even all of the above are needed.
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/10/planetary-boundaries-breached-nature-climate-stories/
We can't emit more carbon. Like really, we cannot. We have to sequester it. Gas plants still emit CO2. Nuclear is fine and works well, and doesn't emit CO2.
-
What are you talking about? Have you seen what kind of plants have been built world wide in the last 10 years?
Link 'em
-
No, renewables have to be replaced by nuclear. Nuclear is incredibly expensive (the most expensive form of energy we have). If you don't run it at capacity 100% of the time, it's even more expensive.
All that money can either produce a small amount of energy if we go with nuclear, or a larger amount of energy if we go with renewables.
That's because nuclear is arbitrarily forced to be expensive due to regulations and legal stuff. If that wasn't included in the price itself, it would be significantly cheaper. However, nuclear took such a big hit politically that it increased costs as less plants were built. It's not so much that renewables are per se cheaper, but rather than nuclear gets artifically inflated. Further, I'm not opposed to renewables, I just think nuclear is needed in addition to renewables since it is better for carbon emissions and we have a carbon issue. It also saves on space where renewables can cause greater environmental impact in terms of taking up space or wildlife fatalities.
Again, weird you don't mention wave or geothermal at all as renewables that have access to near constant power generation.
-
I attended an engineering college for my engineering degree.
If you wanna look into it, the term you need to search for is "life cycle assessment".
This is a kind of report usually by some kind of government agency that creates a very detailed list of materials and energy required to manufacture, transport, install, operate and maintain an installation.
This is then compared against existing electricity production systems that will be replaced by the new one to calculate how long it takes to make up the initial cost both monetarily and emissions wise.
The resulting time frame will drastically vary depending on the supply chain, location, grid capacity, storage capacity and such. The following is a plot from the linked study which combines results from many different studies. They typical lifetime of one of these turbines is 20 years, so you are looking at a ~20x payback factor if it replaces fossil generation (coal/gas/etc).
-
As you can see in Ukraine, there is still absolutely potential for non nuclear weapon based war in Europe.
Arguably that makes nuclear plants safer, because attacking nations won't want to bomb them and risk escalating to a nuclear war. They have no problem bombing power stations and oil refineries, though.
-
It's not expensive because they are actually particularly hard to make though. They're expensive because we made them expensive. There's so many requirements and restrictions on them that aren't on other power sources. Some of that's good, but a lot is designed by dirty energy to keep them in business. They drive up the cost of nuclear and then get to say they're cheaper.
This, and people ignore the carbon emissions part. Nuclear is one of the least carbon emitting sources of energy which is vital to addressing climate change
-
restrictions on them that aren’t on other power sources
Yeah i wonder why that could be lmao. Nothing ever went wrong with fission power plants right?
Please, speak with or read info from lawyers who are nuclear engineers who went into regulations. Look at what they do and how pointless some of this paperwork and back and forth is. Listen to their stories about some of the legal shenanigans that have gone on at sites.
-
If you wanna look into it, the term you need to search for is "life cycle assessment".
This is a kind of report usually by some kind of government agency that creates a very detailed list of materials and energy required to manufacture, transport, install, operate and maintain an installation.
This is then compared against existing electricity production systems that will be replaced by the new one to calculate how long it takes to make up the initial cost both monetarily and emissions wise.
The resulting time frame will drastically vary depending on the supply chain, location, grid capacity, storage capacity and such. The following is a plot from the linked study which combines results from many different studies. They typical lifetime of one of these turbines is 20 years, so you are looking at a ~20x payback factor if it replaces fossil generation (coal/gas/etc).
https://earth.org/nuclear-energy-carbon-emissions-lowest-among-electricity-sources-un-reports/
I'm not arguing against solar and wind. I'm arguing for nuclear in some places, due to: 1) space 2) consistency 3) low carbon emissions, and pointing out that the high cost isn't due to the technology but to regulations and legal practices that have artificially inflated the costs.
-
That's because nuclear is arbitrarily forced to be expensive due to regulations and legal stuff. If that wasn't included in the price itself, it would be significantly cheaper. However, nuclear took such a big hit politically that it increased costs as less plants were built. It's not so much that renewables are per se cheaper, but rather than nuclear gets artifically inflated. Further, I'm not opposed to renewables, I just think nuclear is needed in addition to renewables since it is better for carbon emissions and we have a carbon issue. It also saves on space where renewables can cause greater environmental impact in terms of taking up space or wildlife fatalities.
Again, weird you don't mention wave or geothermal at all as renewables that have access to near constant power generation.
Sure, nuclear could be much cheaper! But it would also be much less safe, because all the regulations and "legal stuff" are what forces the people running the plant to run it in a safe way. The same goes for renewables, but if renewables fail, they don't contaminate the surrounding area for decades or centuries, so there are far fewer of these regulations. If you disagree, I challenge you to provide examples of unnecessary regulations that make nuclear so much more expensive. Show us the numbers.
It also saves on space where renewables can cause greater environmental impact in terms of taking up space or wildlife fatalities.
There are many great ways to deploy renewables so they support the environment. Have you looked at the environmental impact of the mining required for nuclear plants? The impact they have on the rivers they use for cooling, and so on?
Again, weird you don’t mention wave or geothermal at all as renewables that have access to near constant power generation.
It's pretty weird that "renewables" somehow doesn't include those for you.
-
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.
Germany shot itself in the foot when it turned away from nuclear...
-
Germany shot itself in the foot when it turned away from nuclear...
Been saying this for years.
The problem is the power grid essentially being divided by north and south, it's a mess. They needed to fix that before taking nuclear off-grid.
