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…
No. Take a good look at France and their nuclear strategy. Both maintaining old reactors and building new ones is extremely costly. Building times are to be measured in decades. Nuclear power is not economically viable nor is it a solution to the climate catastrophe.
Returning to nuclear power in Germany is nothing but a pointless waste of tax money.
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.
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!
FFS, people are stupid.
There was a huge hysteria about nuclear when Fukushima happened. A clear majority was for immediate action. Merkel’s coalition government would have ended if she hadn’t done a 180 on nuclear and decided to shut down nuclear as soon as possible, which was 2023. I was against shutting it down back then but I thought you can’t go against the whole population, so I get why they did it. People didn’t change their mind until 2022. Nobody talked about reversing that decision in all these years when there was actually time to reverse the decision.
Now, that the last reactor is shut down, the same people that were up in arms in 2011 are now up in arms that we don’t have nuclear. Building new plants will cost billions and take decades and nuclear doesn’t work well with renewables because of its inflexibility. It makes no sense at all. It was a long-term decision we can’t just back away from. What’s done is done.
in retrospect, i understand France’s long-held stance around 2000 that it wants to rely mostly on nuclear. it wasn’t clear, back then, how long fossil fuels would be available (it was predicted they would last another 40 years) so they thought “oh well, uranium will be available for a longer time”. renewable energy wasn’t an (economic) possibility at that time. now that we have cheap solar energy, i suspect the last nuclear power plant worldwide will be shut down sometime around 2040.
I like that you mention the point, Merkel’s coalition made a full 180 turnaround. Which was an error. They could have just made a plan for phasing out the reactors until maybe 2040 or 2050. No, they had to stop them right away and now the existing plants are so gutted that they are not feasible to be rebuilt again.
Anyway, building new power plants takes centuries in Germany. So we should just focus on renewables *and storage solutions now.
Right away being over a decade later at pretty much the end of life of those plantd without refurbishment.
nuclear doesn’t work well with renewables because of its inflexibility
Uuuuh, why wouldn’t it? Nuclear can provide a steady base load for the grid while the renewables are providing the rest, filling up storages for spike times if there is an excess. Don’t really see how this is a big issue.
The issue is nuclear reactors become more expensive the less load they have.
As we build more renewables, nuclear energy will decrease in cost efficiency as renewables and storages start handling base loads.
The problem isn’t so much that it can’t work, it’s that it will not be cost efficient long term.
Cost. You do not need much storage for a 95% renewable grid. For the last 5% nuclear baseload is still way too expensive.
I suspect that we will utilize a gas peaker plants for the last 5% for a long time; i couldn’t think of a much better option.
Nuclear works well with renewables. It provides reliable base load while the renewables and batteries can be used on top of that. Plus the fuel can be sourced from friendly nations like Canada.
Also worth noting that 15 years is a long time. SMRs are starting to be built and France is planning to build a bunch of nuclear capacity in the near future which might mean the possiblity to import cheap energy or leverage the human resources from those builds.
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.
It seems to me nuclear takes you off the ebb and flow of global energy prices, I’d prefer spending on nuclear rather than carbon capture which seems to be the existing plan of many countries to combat climate change.
How exactly does nuclear decouple you from global dependencies if there are less than 20 countries with more than 100k tonnes of uranium reserves, with only one of them being in the EU?
it will become cheaper
Lol, sure. Says who?
France started building nuclear in the 1970s to begin with
Good example… The country that has to heavily subsidise power so people can still afford it.
FFS, people are stupid.
Proceeds to be pro nuclear.
I was against shutting down already written off power plants early while coal power plants were still running. I was in favor of shutting down coal first, yes.
And the funny thing is that coal power plants are actually more radioactive to the environment than nuclear power. Sure, accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima change the statistics by quite a lot, but for the absolute majority of nuclear plants they are way less radioactive to the environment than any given coal plant around.
Also there’s not that many severe nuclear disasters in the history. Coal and other organic fuel plants cause far more casualties globally than nuclear ever did. But maybe it’s easier to accept slow death of a lot of people due to cancer and whatever caused by organic fuel power plant emissions than single large spike when nuclear power (very, very rarely) goes wrong.
Well, if that’s so rare and can essentially be ignored, I’m sure you’ll easily find insurance for nuclear plants that will cover the cost of a potential disaster. I mean, after all, it evens out over all the nuke plants, right? The market handles it, right?
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.
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 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.
Emphasis is misleading. If you think that an “assumption” is called an assumption because there’s no evidence, you don’t know how words are used in science. Also, it’s supposed to be the other way round… If radiation damages cells (which I guess you don’t seriously doubt) there needs to be evidence for a threshold, not for there not being one. Also:
Many expert scientific panels have been convened on the risks of ionizing radiation. Most explicitly support the LNT model and none have concluded that evidence exists for a threshold, with the exception of the French Academy of Sciences in a 2005 report.
The “controversy” chapter on that page is worth a read, but the point there is still pretty clear: most scientists do not see any indication for the existence of a threshold.
/edit
Also notice which country the scientists are from that don’t agree on the lnt model… The one country that went all in on nuclear power. No shit, Sherlock.
it’s okay in some amounts since you’re getting radiation doses every day even not living near anything nuclear).
And people get cancer every day. I don’t share their argument that NPPs in normal operation are a risk, but OP is somewhat right, there’s no safe radiation dose, just one we deem safe enough mainly because it doesn’t significantly raise our risk of cancer compared to the natural exposure. And NPPs in normal operation emit less radiation than for example coal fire plants.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Unshielded if you ignore around 149.000.000 km distance. And it’s still the largest cause of skin cancer which is one of the most widespread ones.
You stupid fuck should think for a second before you spout bullshit in such a vile and disrespectful manner.
I’m down for being critical on the internet but you should go back straight to Reddit as that is the cesspool that this type of behaviour deserves.
The sun pumps more radiation to you then any nuclear reactor will for anyone except the guys who fucked with the demon core.
And by your own argument, the sun kills thousands every year.
How many have died from nuclear reactors? Not counting the russians/soviets of course, who shouldn’t be allowed to play with the rounded scissors we got in preschool.
They are far, FAR safer than coal, which killed thousands a year, I was in China during the bad times, it was horrific.
You’re like an evangelical who believes a thing based on no proof.
Lol you contradicted yourself. First you implied that the sun is proof that there is a safe level of radiation and then you agree that the sun kills people. 🤡
It also gives us vitamin-d.
But hey, since nuclear is so bad, I guess you can never go to the beach, or outside, ever, because all radiation is evil.
Two videos which are dissecting the German case of nuclear in a fair manner.
There’s nothing more to come. Nuclear power is slow and uneconomical.
Joe Kaeser, Chairman of the Supervisory Board of Siemens Energy: “There isn’t a single nuclear power plant in the world that makes economic sense,” he said on the ARD program Maischberger on November 27, 2024.
https://www.tagesschau.de/faktenfinder/farbebekennen-weidel-faktencheck-100.html?at_medium=mastodon
A fact check by the Fraunhofer Institute on nuclear energy states: “For example, around €2.5 billion would have to be raised to cover the nuclear waste generated. Overall, considerable short-term investments would be required.” (for the construction of a new power plant)
Also the time it would take to build new power plants and get them to run would be something lile 20-25 years. We dont have that much time to get a grip on climate change so it doesnt matter annyways. Either we get 100% renewables untill then or we are fucked annyways.
I also have the real cost of building a new reactor in mind when thinking of Germany getting back into nuclear.
Is the economic sense really a good argument? That implies that a privatized group needs to make profit, all external effects paid for, and still be able to give you a good price.
If the government builds this with the aim of supplying cheap energy to people and industry with no profit margin then does this all matter?
The government spends large sums of money on this that and the other and the return of investment on these things are obscure or manifest over longer time horizons like building infrastructure etc
I am not against renewables, just to say that. I could not have too many windmills etc and the arguments against them are unconvincing.
Is the economic sense really a good argument? That implies that a privatized group needs to make profit, all external effects paid for, and still be able to give you a good price.
No, it’s not about privatized groups. Even the government has limited money (they can print more, but that leads to inflation). This means the money should be spent efficiently, so we get the most out of it. Nuclear is - by far - the most expensive form of energy we have. We can build more renewables + storage with the same money.
Is the economic sense really a good argument? That implies that a privatized group needs to make profit, all external effects paid for, and still be able to give you a good price.
The only way to make an expensive energy source cheap is by subsidizing it. We’ll get more out of the same amount of money if we build cheap energy sources.
We have an almost indefinite source of energy below our feet and almost nobody talks about. Screw nuclear, go geothermal
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?
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.
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.
It’s not an either-or.
We need as many sources of energy as possible to increase the available supply and reduce the cost.
usually i would agree to the “increase supply to lower the cost” story, but in the case of energy it’s a bit different, because the Energy market uses the merit order principle, which means that whenever the nuclear reactors run, electricity is just as expensive as if nuclear reactors were the only source of electricity, and if they don’t run, only then prices drop.
so, you’re only getting cheaper prices by not needing nuclear energy. but, for nuclear plants, building them is a huge part of the cost, and that still has to be paid by somebody, even if they aren’t used later on to produce electricity.
add to that that construction is typically heavily subsidized by taxes, which means if you’re not using them, it’s just a huge burden on the taxpayers.
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.
Maybe Thorium reactors but not that other shit that poisons everything for millenia.
Said like someone who has never encountered the concept of opportunity costs.
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.
Doesn’t work everywhere.
They asked 1000 people - not that representative and most of the German don‘t want a return to the 60s or 70s - at least no people voting for the backward-looking CDU or the Neo-Nazis AfD. And well - Southern and Eastern Germany. No miracle, unfortunately. 🤷🏼♂️
Statisticians have found that for many types of surveys, a sample size of around 1,000 people is the sweet spot—regardless of if the population size is 100,000 or 100M.
Wouldn’t it depend a lot on how many of those people consume the exact same information sources on topics like this where the average person has no real clue at all to make their own judgement?
If you want to find out what the average person thinks, polls from 1000 to 5000 people work. If you want to educate the average person or get the opinions of already-educated people, those are different tasks.
Chances that you randomly pick 1000 people that all consume the exact same media is pretty low I guess
Considering a lot of polls are conducted in ways that are self-limiting (e.g. voluntary over landline phones) it is not that absurd that they might all (or a significant enough percentage to screw with results) would read e.g. the same major newspaper (e.g. BILD in Germany has a lot of misinformation).
Due to an absolutely comical amount of disinformation on the topic. People are absolutely clueless about the potential costs in time and money.
That was mostly when they were rushing to shut down nuclear plants. Getting them operational again will be insane cost opposed to them keep on running like before.
You can’t get them running again. They’re gone.
Even before nuclear power was the most expensive type in the energy mix iirc.
We’re not saving the world by always choosing the cheapest option, that’s how we got here
No one is talking about building new coal plants or similar. Comparing good low carbon options, nuclear is still very expensive.
Exactly. If you only go by kw/euro spent then you end up tearing down wind turbines to expand coal mines which Germany has already done.
If you go by the actual environmental cost and sustainability, specifically carbon use and land use ar square meter/kw, nuclear becomes so “cheap” you have to ask if anyone who is opposed to it cares about future generations still having a habitable planet and living in a civilization that hasn’t collapse into the pre-industrial.
We need nuclear to be the backbone of our future same as we need wind and solar as renewables to supplement and offer quick expansion and coverage of energy needs as our demands continue to rise.
yes even coal is “cheaper” than nuclear once you disregard polution
once you disregard polution
Including radioactive waste, which coal produces significantly more of than fission power.
The costs in both time and money to build nuclear are due to regulations and NIMBY legal stuff, and not actually relating to the technology itself being built. If they can use some of the same locations then that should help
The locations have all outlived their life spans already. Also there is no more expertise in Germany, the old operators went to retire. Also it would take more than a decade to obtain new nuclear fuel. Also also also
It’s a wet dream of conservative politicians that want bribes from the electricity company ceos for implementing the worst kind of unneeded centralized power plant
electricity companies in germany don’t want nuclear energy. It’s way too expensive. just look at france - you can’t do it without massive subsidies. France however is another story as their electricity company is state-owned.
Building, running, maintaining and decommissioning fission plants is so unfathomably expensive on the taxpayer its not even believable. They are also super prone to war issues because they are so centralized. With a few attacks you can take out most of the energy supply of a country relying heavily on nuclear power. Good luck trying to take out all the island capable solar installations and every wind turbine.
If someone attacks Germany’s nuclear power plants the world as we know it won’t exist because nuclear weapons will launch ravaging most of the world.
Also you don’t need to attack every single solar panel, just the power distribution centers
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 to prevent builds, not based on genuine concern but out of financial concern.
As I said, some is necessary. However, a lot is just to make it not viable to protect dirty energy. Nuclear fission is one of the safest sources of energy, including the disasters and clean energy. It’s incredibly safe, and has only gotten safer. The chance of a meltdown are damn near zero now, and even if one happens there’s little chance for significant issues.
Meanwhile coal is spewing out radioactive waste constantly and has very little restrictions.
Another big factor is that every plant is effectively a completely custom design. Because of how few nuclear plants are constructed, every new one tends to incorporate technological advancements to enhance safety or efficiency. The design also has to be adapted to the local climate and land layout. This makes every single plant effectively one of a kind.
It also tends to be built by different contractors, involving different vendors and electric utilities every time. Other countries have done better here (e.g. China and France) mostly due to comprehensive government planning: plopping down lots of reactors of the same design, done by the same engineers. Although these countries are not fully escaping cost increases either.
You are completely correct that regulation is also a big factor. Quality assurance and documentation requirements are enormously onerous. This article does a pretty decent job explaining the difficulties.
Yeah but this is for areas that don’t get enough sun or wind to meet their energy needs. The make small scale nuclear reactors as well. And cities themselves, being supplied by nuclear plants, are juicy military targets too. If a bomb lands anywhere near a city including the plant, it’s bad
Yeah but this is for areas that don’t get enough sun or wind to meet their energy needs.
Which is almost nowhere. There can be intermittent issues, but those can be overcome with a larger network and grid-level storage.
The make small scale nuclear reactors as well.
Which are less efficient, so even more expensive.
And cities themselves, being supplied by nuclear plants, are juicy military targets too. If a bomb lands anywhere near a city including the plant, it’s bad
Not sure what your argument here is, because no matter what kind of energy production you’re using, bombing a city is always bad. But it’s much easier to cause great harm with nuclear than renewable generators.
But renewables aren’t being replaced with this, fossil fuels are. The grid level storage is significant and requires significant mining and upkeep for that, and it’s very inefficient. We need blended energy sources for safety, with a mix of water, wind, wave, solar, geothermal, and nuclear
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.
Grid-level storage is getting more and more efficient - a couple of years ago, the combined cost of renewables + storage got smaller than the cost of nuclear. Nuclear is still getting more expensive, whereas renewables + storage is getting cheaper and cheaper.
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.
There is basically no place in the world where you cant use either wind or solar.
Yes, there are, especially if you don’t want to deforest land. And wind and solar and not constant sources. A mix of sources are needed. That you havent mentioned geothermal or wave energy shows that you’re kinda out of your depth here. I’ve gone to many engineering seminars about this, we must have a mix of energy sources and we must use nuclear if our goal is to reduce or eliminate carbon emissions. Other sources of energy all emit too much carbon.
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.
And no, we specifically discussed this about lanes and trains and buses etc. Just like we discussed nuclear energy.
How do they sequester the carbon they emit? Do you have a link to an article that can explain what you’re saying? Or are you saying its carbon emissions are less than coal or gas, which is different than not emitting anything at all?
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).
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.
Everytime a new climate model comes out things get more and more dire. We needed to stop emitting in like 2000, ASAP is what we have to do now.
getting back in to nuclear would be as foolish as dropping it in the first place. i swear i hate my government sometimes. a history of bad decisions.
lacht in nuklearabfall der in der asse das grundwasser verseucht!!
Warum downvotes??
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.
SPD, Greens, the power industry, economists … basically everyone except the guys who wouldn’t want a nuclear plant or waste dump next to them anyway: Söder Challenge
There’s no good reason to be against nuclear power. It’s green, it’s safe, it’s incredibly efficient, the fuel is virtually infinite, and the waste can be processed in a million different ways to make it not dangerous.
There’s no good reason to be against nuclear power.
Ahh, you gotta keep in mind: useful idiots.
It’s incredibly expensive when all costs over the entire construction period, operating period, dismantling period and storage period for nuclear waste are taken into account.
How does the cost compare to the starting and operating a coal mine?
What about oil wells and refineries?
We’ve got other alternatives. I was not proposing to build coal mines.
It’s not a binary nuclear or coal choice.
Take 50 billion Euros, you want to invest in clean energy and have the biggest impact you can. You don’t buy one nuclear power plant, that’s for sure. You probably build multiple wind farms (around 10bn each) which, while intermittent, will each provide similar total energy over a year.
As for coal, it’s even more expensive when it kills off the planet.
No doubt but we have other viable options.
I’m not the kind to hate on nuclear power itself, but let’s not assume it’s perfect either. There are good reasons against nuclear power, its just not the usual reasons raised by people.
The cost and time effort needed for building one plant is one drawback.
The fact that you can’t say “let’s turn off the nuclear reactor now that we have enough renewables and later today we start it again when the sunlight is over”. It’s a terrible energy source to supply for extra demand needed without perfect planning.
Nowadays, nuclear is not so worth it in general, not because of fearmongering about the dangers (an old plant badly upkept is a danger, independent of what energy source you use, but specially for nuclear plants). Ideally a combination of different renewables would be best, with some energy storage to be used as backup, plus proper sharing of the resources between different places. There’s always sun somewhere, there’s always wind somewhere, …
It’s not perfect, but to forego nuclear energy while still burning fossil fuels is retarded.
Nobody is arguing for fossil fuels here.
So if our energy needs are not being met even while burning fossil fuels, why would you argue against nuclear energy which further reduces the supply of available energy?
Nuclear keeps us on the teet of fossils fuels for longer than switching to renewables. Nuclear takes too long to build. Renewables can come online incrementally displacing fossil fuels far sooner. It drops the rate of damage faster.
If we wait for nuclear plants that haven’t even been green lot yet the accumulated damage will be massive.
Yeah. You’re just showing us that you lack a fundamental understanding of how the power grid works.
Nuclear keeps us on the teet of fossils fuels for longer than switching to renewables.
It doesn’t, but I’d like to see you explain how.
Nuclear takes too long to build.
No it doesn’t. We still need more energy sources.
Renewables can come online incrementally displacing fossil fuels far sooner.
Our energy needs are not being met right now. I can’t stress this enough: you simply do not have even a basic level of understanding about how the power grid works.
It drops the rate of damage faster.
Yeah. You’re clueless.
As opposed to thinking we could replace fossil fuels with nuclear power faster than we can replace them with renewables which is obviously a totally sane belief given how large construction projects are going… /s
It’s more expensive than the alternatives, and comes with additional downsides. There is no good reason to be pro nuclear, unless you need a lot of power for a long time in a tight space. So a ship or a space station for example.
NGL, I dig the idea of Sodium plants:
Not sure how practical they are outside the general idea, but it looks promising.
Considering the current political climate I don’t think the world would look at Germany building breeder reactors (thats what these are, even if they desperately try to avoid that term) and just say “Great idea!” ;).
Jokes aside, breeders need at least one more generation of research/demo plants to be really commercially viable. Afaik all breeders so far had less than 50% uptime and none could avoid sodium fires. They would solve quite a few fuel problems tho conisering you can “burn” recycled U238 in them.
Personally I would prefer Thorium cycle plants, but those are even further off.
For Germany right now I don’t see much sense in building new current tech reactors. For the same tax money we would need to subsidize these plants, we could build so much more renewable (and storage) capacity which would result in a faster reduction of ghg emissions.
Even Japan is restarting their reactors
Solar and wind are great, but major industrialized nations will need some nuclear capacity.
It’s going to happen sooner or later.
The question is just about how long we delay it, with extra emissions and economic depression in the mean time.
Japan doesn’t have a huge amount of choice in energy generation. Off shore wind doesn’t work as the water is too deep. On shore wind doesn’t have the space or geography either. Solar works, but their weather isn’t ideal. Geothermal…possibly being near fault lines but their not like Iceland with a small population to supply. I believe locations for hydro are limited too.
Nuclear gives them energy independence and fits.
This exactly. You need a reliable source of fuel for the baseline, which is where nuclear energy can supplant fossil fuels instead of or in addition to relying on batteries.
No, nuclear is awful as a baseline since you can’t turn it off and back on quickly
You’re absolutely correct, and few people realise this. They think “baseline = stable power”, but that’s not what you need. You need a quick and cheap way to scale up production when renewables don’t produce enough. On a sunny, windy day, renewables already produce more than 100% of needs in some countries. At that point, the ‘baseline’ needs to shut down so that this cheap energy can be used instead. The baseline really is a stable base demand, but the supply has to be very flexible instead (due to the relative instability of solar and wind, the cheapest sources available).
Nuclear reactors can shut down quite quickly these days, but starting them back up is slow. But worse, nuclear is quite expensive, and maintaining a plant in standby mode not producing anything is just not economically feasible. Ergo, nuclear is terrible for a baseline power source (bar any future technological breakthroughs).
There’s nothing green, cheap, or safe about nuclear power. We’ve had three meltdowns already and two of them have ruined their surrounding environments:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Mining for fuel ruins the water table:
A Uranium-Mining Boom Is Sweeping Through Texas (contaminating the water table) https://www.wired.com/story/a-uranium-mining-boom-is-sweeping-through-texas-nuclear-energy/
Waste disposal, storage, and reprocessing are prohibitively expensive:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rethinking-nuclear-fuel-recycling/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rethinking-nuclear-fuel-recycling/
Let’s see here… nuclear meltdowns have damaged the environments around the few plants that have experienced them.
Burning fossil fuels has damaged our entire planet…
Now list all the fossil fuels related incidents.
Nuclear + renewables is the way to go to stop the climate crisis in the foreseeable future.
People really don’t understand that climate change is worse for life on this planet than a million Fukushima accidents.
And ironically enough, Fukushima and Chernobyl have not been that bad for plant and animal life. The area around Chernobyl is thriving because most humans are gone.
Sources: https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-chernobyl-has-become-unexpected-haven-wildlife
It also caused a bunch of Russian soldiers to get sick because they dug holes in the ground. It isn’t a nuclear paradise, and I’m not interested in Chernobyl-grown food, but it isn’t a complete wasteland, either.
I was talking specifically about plant and animal life.
It’s obviously not a paradise, but what I mean is, ionising radiation is literally less harmful to them than human presence. That’s pretty bonkers to think about.
Leave that zone alone, let nature take over again and make it a monument to human hubris.I don’t think I talked about growing food in irradiated ground though? But, we currently are growing food in polluted ground thanks to fossil fuels (microplastics, coal dust, oil leaks, fracking in some backwards ass countries, etc.).
So how are burrowing animals doing? I’ve seen pretty pictures of deer and trees, how are the rabbits and foxes? What are their lifespans compared to those in other regions?
Just because the animals don’t look like cutscenes from The 100 doesn’t mean their life is idyllic, or even better than elsewhere. And all those animals are eating food grown in irradiated ground. Now, whether that’s better or worse than microplastics and fossil fuel waste and leakage is another interesting question.
Fukushima isn’t the big argument against nuclear.
IT’S TOO EXPENSIVE
The “expensive” argument is bollocks.
It’s not too expensive for China, South Korea, Japan, the USA, France, the UAE, Iran, India, Russia.
The countries without nuclear will deindustrialize and the countries with nuclear will outcompete them.
The countries without nuclear will deindustrialize and the countries with nuclear will outcompete them.
Where is the evidence for that claim?
Germany is the obvious evidence for that claim. Their once great industry is doing really bad due to high energy prices. Which is why even they are second guessing the Energiewende.
Despite insane levels of investment in renewables, they are still stuck on gas en lignite and have very high energy prices.
Merkel’s bet that Russian gas could always be depended on didn’t work out.
No it’s not.
Wait until you see the price of climate change and not moving away from fossil fuels then
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.
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.
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!
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.
Wait what I am 100% pro renewables…
If nuclear somehow were the only option, I would support it. But it’s the worst option.
How do we supply power when renewables aren’t enough?
Completely moving away from fossil fuels with just renewables is a pipe dream. Nuclear is not a panacea and it has its problems but it’s part of the solution to get rid of fossil fuels entirely.
Three Mile Island was a partial meltdown, which may sound close to an actual meltdown, it’s not even close in terms of danger.
Fukushima failed because the plants were old and not properly upkept. Had they followed the guidelines for keeping the plant maintained, it would not have happened.
That’s not really the fault of nuclear power.
Chernobyl was also partially caused by lack of adherence to safety measures, but also faulty plant design.
I’d say, being generous, only one of those three events says anything about the safety of nuclear power, and even then, we have come a very long way.
So one event… Ever.
Chernobyl shouldn’t have happened due to safety measures, yet it did. Fukushima shouldn’t have happened, yet it did. The common denominator is human error, but guess who’ll be running any other nuclear power plants? Not beavers.
Fukushima’s reactors were extremely old, even at the time. We’re not even talking about the same technology. Shit has come a very long way.
Sure, and the next catastrophe will have some good reason too, yet it will happen due to human error and greed.
Unlike the complete safety of fossil fuels.
Because everyone knows there’s literally only fossil fuels and nuclear energy, nothing else.
That must be why you people are suggesting to turn the extremely old German reactors back on that have had limited maintenance under the assumption that they would be turned off for decades now.
That must be why you people are suggesting to turn the extremely old German reactors back on
Is that what I did? Well that’s news to me!
How is a nuclear meltdown not the fault of nuclear power? Of course you can prevent it by being super careful and stuff, but it is inherent to nuclear power that it is super dangerous. What is the worst that can happen with a wind turbine? It falls, that’s it.
Because the shit they were using in the Fukushima plants was so old that it might as well be completely different technology. Same with Chernobyl.
People are referencing shit that does not even apply to modern nuclear power.
if we were to either replace all power on earth with nuclear, or replace all power on earth with wind, more people would die from- idk, falling out of wind turbines- then from deaths due to nuclear.Fukushima had a fucking earthquake and a tsunami thrown at it, AND the company which made it cut corners. It was still, much, much less bad than it could have been and the reactor still partially withstood a lot of damage.
In the United States at least (and i assume the rest of the world) nuclear energy is so overegulated that many reactors can have meltdowns without spelling disaster for the nearby area. Nuclear caskets (used to transport and store wastes) can withstand fucking missle strikes.
Im not going to pretend that there arent genuine issues with nuclear, such as cost and construction time(*partially caused by the overegulation), but genuine nuclear disaster has only ever resulted from the worst of human decisions combined with the worst of circumstances. Do i trust humans not to make shitty mistakes? No, not with all this overegulation, but still, even counting Fukushima and Chernobyl, more people die from wind (and especially fossil fuels) then nuclear per terawatt of electricity production.
Thank you for bringing some light to these people living in the dark.
I swear, some people see an influencer say “nuclear is actually really bad!” and then just take it and run.
Really puts into perspective how smart the average person in these days. They’re just trying to look good in front of their peers.
I wouldn’t go so far as to call it “Green” until we have a better way of disposing the waste that doesn’t involve creating new warning signs that can still be read and understood 10,000 years from now. :)
If it’s still a danger in 5,000 years, that’s not “green”. :)
Great story on the signage though!
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200731-how-to-build-a-nuclear-warning-for-10000-years-time
I’ve always preferred the IPCC terminology of “low-carbon”. Emphasizes that all power sources have carbon and other emissions at some point in their lifecycle. They also levelize the emissions based on energy produced over the expected lifespan of the power generation station/solar panel/dam/wind turbine/etc, and nuclear power is down there with solar, wind, geo, and hydro. Waste must be dealt with, and the best disposal method is reprocessing so you don’t have to store it.
Nuclear semiotics is fascinating. I was very excited when I came across the Federal Disposal Field in Fallout 76 and found that Bethesda used the “field of spikes” design.
This, it’s also pretty much the ONLY technology we have that can be near carbon neutral over time (mainly releasing carbon in the cement to make the plant, then to a lesser extent, mining to dig up and refine material, and transport of workers and goods).
The cost associated with nuclear is due to regulation and legal issues and not relating to the cost to build the actual plant itself so much. There are small scale reactors and many options. Yes it should be used wisely but we can’t keep burning fossil fuels.
lel mongo
It’s really sad to see that evidently more than half of the german population have an opinion on something which they have little to no understanding of. It’s frustrating what misinformation can achieve.
Nuclear power might work for some nations, but there is just no way it makes sense in germany. All previous plants are in dire need of renovation and will be hugely expensive to bring back up and running, and a new one is just as overly optimistic, as major construction projects routinely go far over budget here, and nuclear energy is already not price competitive with renewables. Nobody wants waste storage, let alone a power plant near them, and it would take years until a plant is even producing energy. By that time, it might already be redundant, because renewables and energy storage will be cheaper and more ubiquitous. there is just no way nuclear power makes sense for germany.
I don’t mind having a power plant near me.
It’s a minuscule risk compared to what we deal with every day with cars.
You’re more likely to get cancer from eating red meat.
Now living under power lines? That’s dangerous.
It’s not only the risk factor, people routinely oppose wind turbines just because they dislike how they look. and huge cooling towers are not exactly subtle.
but the ‘risk factor’ is a total non-issue in regards to making this decision. nuclear power could be 100% safe and it would still simply be far too expensive to be worth it.
Nuclear is the way of the future. Its between that and fossil fuels realistically.
I say we bury the waste in your garden then
waste is a much smaller problem than co2 emmissions. Waste can be put in water which completely shields it.
Then it should pose no problem to put it in your garden for a million years when it decayed enough to be less dangerous when we build you a pool? You have to make sure to maintain the pool until it’s completely safe though.
Talk about arguing in bad faith.
Do you honestly expect rational adults to take your ‘point’ seriously? Like, come on.
The same shit you’re saying could be said about landfills. “Let me just put the trash in YOUR garden!”
I’m not, I’m just trying to make it understandable on a smaller scale. I wouldn’t want to poison my garden much less in a greater scale any other place.
And before you say anything, coal sucks too.
You literally are nuclear waste.
For those who understand German, I would like to leave this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmixpDsrKR4
Sorry everyone else.
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.
-
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.
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?
Are you under the impression that a single nuclear reactor would make a dent in Germany’s energy requirements?
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.
How can nuclear fill that gap. Please explain
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.
Which is why they should never have been decommissioned in the first place.
Those plants were very old and already had their lifespan extended a couple times (for a lot of money). Ultimately they were decommissioned before the next end-of-life date, which perhaps was a bit early, but keeping them open indefinitely just wasn’t feasible.
So we made a mistake, and to make up for it, we should make another one?
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.
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.
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.
Most people suggest nuclear baseload with renewables+battery for peaks.
Except baseload doesn’t really exist anymore in a power grid with lots of renewables. Those renewables already produce 100% of what is required at times and those times will become more common, and small gaps can be bridged with batteries etc. The real gap with renewables is going to be those times when there is no sun and wind for days, which apparently happens only a few times a year for a week or so at a time. And building a bunch of hugely expensive power plants and then have them sit idle for 95% of the time isn’t a good plan.
Would, should, could:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine
Why didn’t they bury it in impermeable bedrock then in this case. It will cost the taxpayer 3.7 billion to evacuate the rusty and leaky containers there. Which will probably start in 2033 and last decades. If they don’t get it right the waste will probably leak into groundwater. That was already stated in a report from 1979 but declared as unscientific by managers of the facilitiy. The building time for Olkiluotos Onkalo was 20 years. You can search for other “End Storages” of nuclear waste around the world. Not many of them are even operating now. You can also look up facilities in Arizona making the same mistake as Germany in storing the waste in salt mines. You can also lookup the devastating effects of Uranium mining for the environment (e.g. in Navajo land).
Here’s your baseload argument debunked:
Yesterday 58% of the energy in Germany came from renewables. It briefly had a day in January when renewables surpassed 100% of its energy demand. Energy is sold between the member states of the EU. Germany regularily imports about 2-5% of its energy per year. Not because they can’t generate the baseload via coal or gas but because it’s cheaper to buy. Only 0.5% of that imported energy comes from nuclear. The rest is also from renewables.
A bit offtopic but related: Mr. Habeck the previous much scolded economy minister had a big part in the rise of renewables and his further plans would have been to build out hydrogen production via renewables to act as a future CO2 neutral baseload capacity. Now Germany is in the hands of old white men again who want to burn the world. Just yesterday a headline was that the conservatives want to restrict the influence of the buero against monopolies in pursuing suspected cases of price agreements between fossil fuel cooperations.
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…
-
Why would you add such nonsensical conditions?
