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.
You must log in or register to comment.
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.
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.
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.
What do you mean? The cost of an old nuclear reactors’ MWh is 40-50€, that’s really competitive.
And unlike solar and wind, it produces anytime. As a French person, not only do I think we were right to build them in the first place, I’m annoyed we stopped in the 2000s after the Chernobyl scare campaign, it’s safer than Germany’s coal, which also produces radioactive waste and isn’t properly regulated, unlike nuclear.
Look at the desaster that is Flamanville 3, for instance.
The cour de comptes is pretty clear about it, too: https://www.ccomptes.fr/sites/default/files/2025-01/20250114-La-filiere-EPR -une-dynamique-nouvelle-des-risques-persistants_0.pdf
I agree that coal is important to phase out, even moreso than nuclear power. Germany was wrong to leave nuclear before coal.
But building new reactors is an utter waste of time and money.I have two answers to give you.
-
Flamanville is a new generation of reactor that we are testing out after regretfully stopping the large-scale production of reactors in France. Therefore the welding sector had been lacking work for 20 years, many retiring. The same issue goes for many other highly-specialized skills in the field. Americans had to be brought in to fill in for these positions, at high cost. So the left hadn’t been corrupted by Russia into being against nuclear power in the first place, Flamanville would like gone about as well as developing a fundamentally different design can. I will grant you, however, that this isn’t the design I would have liked to see deployed: France used to be developing the Phoénix and SuperPhénix fast neutron reactors until protesters made them stop. These kinds of reactors are cleaner, more fuel-efficient (by several orders of magnitude!), some variants can even consume previous nuclear waste, although I don’t think these two French designs could. These would have been wonderful to have access to. Russia and China have already developed these designs, in large parts with our researchers when they lost their jobs, and we’ll eventually just buy them from them again. Nice plan.
-
What would you replace these with? Batteries? Once again? Coal? Renewables? How would you deal when, all over Europe, every winter, there are weeks on end with next to no wind nor sun? Should we create new mountain ranges and rivers to store more energy hydraulically? Shift demand? Nuclear is the worst system except for all the others.
-
Building times are to be measured in decades.
Should probably have invested more into developing their knowledge and experience then. Just have a look at China.
Littering vast spaces of land for wind and sun power generation is hardly a better long term solution.
Even China builds more renewable than nuclear. And I’d rather not look at authoritarian dictatorships for tips on how to handle building regulations.
Unlike china, Germany has a lot of environmental and safety standards it has to meet before it can operate any large plant, and it cannot just give the contract to the lowest bidder who mixes rubbish and toxic waste into the cement als filler material…
Yes, I’m sure reopening coal plants and displacing villages to mine coal is a better environmental policy.
And are you suggesting that the West wouldn’t be able to build cheaper and faster nuclear power plants even if we had actually invested in the technology for all these years? Is nuclear technology some unicorn that can’t be improved with experience and research?
Keep looking at things from a money perspective and the solution become obvious : kill everyone and be done with it.
Today, nuclear energy is a reasonably safe, efficient source of energy. Is it the energy of the future ? Probably not. But is it an efficient option for smoothing the grid while planting renewable all around it? It’s definitely better than the other alternatives. Does it cost money to develop? Sure. Everything costs money. But there are benefits that won’t show up in an accounting book that can’t be brushed aside.
Power to gas, water pumps, heat storage and battery storage are viable alternatives. There are many days already where we over produce green energy. Why sink hundreds of billions into nuclear plants when we could use the energy we already produce instead?
Nuclear power is all but efficient.
You keep seeing these as “alternatives”, despite the shortcomings.
I say they are complimentary, and as far as providing power to address these shortcomings, nuclear power is a good solution. How can you look at something that can single-handedly address all power requirements in some area, while providing supports to other, and say “nah”, seriously.
I can say that because we neither have the time nor the money to sink it into nuclear plants. We have green tech. It’s cheap, we’re building capacity like crazy.
And you’re just gonna ignore all the shortcomings and hope they evaporate, I suppose. Nice plan you got there.
The whole point is that this alone is a risk for the short-medium term that could have been mitigated if not for blind and outdated policies. Look at what a single nuclear power plant could produce continuously, with little variation related to time of day or weather. Saying “we can do without that” today is just foolishness, ignorance, or wilful degradation.
One way or another you need grid-scale turbines to maintain grid frequency. Solar power can’t set frequency and wind power is too variable, so power grids use some sort of turbine to do it.
Nuclear reactors are also necessary to generate things like medical isotopes and tritium for industrial processes, and fusion research. Someone, somewhere on Earth needs to keep their fission reactors going.
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
Yeah they need all the energy they can get to manufacture bombs and give them to Israel.
Anything but making people consume less
Which outlines why you don’t do majority-vote politics. There is zero interest by private entities to restart nuclear in Germany. Why? Because it makes zero sense.
No one wants to front the money, no one wants to buy overpriced nuclear power, no one wants the waste, no one wants a responsibility for decades and I bet you, if you asked the people on the poll whether they want to live near a plant or waste facility, almost everyone is going to say no.
The sole reason for (modern) nuclear power is high reliability at very low emissions and much energy per space. You know what can also do this? A battery.
If you want to install state-of-the-art molten salt SMRs as high-reliability baseline supply for network infrastructure and hospitals, go for it. But don’t try to sell me a super expensive water boiler as miracle technology.
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.
Killing nuclear energy in Germany was the greatest success of FSB up to the point of planting an asset right in the middle of the Oval Office.
We have an almost indefinite source of energy below our feet and almost nobody talks about. Screw nuclear, go geothermal
Doesn’t work everywhere.
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.
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.
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.
You literally are nuclear waste.
I’ll just comment about one thing that keeps popping up in the discussions: grid-level storage. There is no such thing yet really that would last a full day cycle, and the 100MW or so units we are building are mostly for frequency stabilization and for buying enough time to turn on a base-load plant when the renewables drop out. I’m not arguing against storage - it is absolutely needed.
The problem is the scale, which people don’t seem to get. Largest amount of energy we can currently repeatedly store and release is with pumped hydro, and the locations where this is possible are few and far between. Once the batteries reach this level-of-capacity, then we have a possibility to use them as grid-level storage that lasts a few days instead of hours.
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!
Two videos which are dissecting the German case of nuclear in a fair manner.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Nuclear power is great. But I do wonder if they might be targets in a war with Russia or something. Can they be prevented from meltdown in the case of a missile strike?
Huh? Modern nuclear power plants automatically stop the reaction. In addition to other safety features monitoring things like temperature, radiation, etc. for automatic shutoff, the rods are held in place via electromagnetism. In the event of a power loss, the reaction will stop because the rods fall out of place. (This may just be one type; other modern reactors have ways of automatically stopping the reaction in the event of a power loss.)
The main reaction can be stopped within seconds, but the secondary reaction cannot. If the reactor isn’t sufficiently cooled by running water through it, it will meltdown due to the secondary reactions.
Those are old designs, new ones basically stop once the water is removed.
Hence the ‘negative void coefficient’, modern designs lose reactivity as the water is removed.
Look at pebble bed and other designs.
As far as I know (I’m not an expert), negative void coefficient only affects the fission reaction, i.e. the controlled splitting of uranium atoms. The uranium atoms split into smaller unstable atoms, which decays over time causing heat. If the decay heat isn’t removed, the core will melt.
Pebble Bed Reactors seem to be generation IV reactors, and I don’t think there are any generation IV reactors in commercial use as of today. Again, my knowledge is limited, but I believe most reactors in commercial use are some kind of water cooled, water moderated reactors. For example, European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) is one of the latest designs commissioned in commercial use, and that design includes 4 emergency coolant systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTR-PM
China has the pbr in production as modular reactors.
When the reactor temperature rises, the atoms in the fuel move rapidly, causing Doppler broadening. The fuel then experiences a wider range of neutron speeds. Uranium-238, which forms the bulk of the uranium, is much more likely to absorb fast or epithermal neutrons at higher temperatures. This reduces the number of neutrons available to cause fission, and reduces power. Doppler broadening therefore creates a negative feedback: as fuel temperature increases, reactor power decreases. All reactors have reactivity feedback mechanisms. The pebble-bed reactor is designed so that this effect is relatively strong, inherent to the design, and does not depend on moving parts. This negative feedback creates passive control of the reaction process.
Thus PBRs passively reduce to a safe power-level in an accident scenario. This is the design’s main passive safety feature
The west is irrationally afraid, but China understands nuclear is inherently safer than fossil fuels after having lost thousands to pollution.
Depends on the reactor type. I know the CANDU reactors that Canada uses are very difficult to meltdown since they use unenriched uranium fuel, and if the deuterium moderator disappears due to a missile strike or something, the reaction just fizzles instead of running away.
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
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.
No one is talking about building new coal plants or similar. Comparing good low carbon options, nuclear is still very expensive.
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.
Who cares when the commoners living next to the coal plant breathe radioactive dust? Its cheaper to run for the industrialists short term, less capital investment to build, educate personell and maintain them is required. /s
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.
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??
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.
that’s a very whacky argument though
That’s not any way to argue or refute an argument.
Except Germany is in a formal treaty with France and the UK who both have nuclear weapons
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Thankfully planning and maintaining the electricity network isn’t done by people commenting on Lemmy. (btw i agree with you)
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.
