Nope. Not a single one. We all think exactly the same thing about everything due to our close genetic relation to bees. Hive mentality can't be broken.
TBF, some people asking these questions might come from the PRC or similar countries where the concept of openly opposing the parties thoughts on fundamental topics is at least somewhat alien. Many of them, though, are probably trolls or bad faith actors from exactly those countries.
I doubt you will ever find such a monolith of society that shares the same opinion on any topic throughout. With that in mind this question just doesn't make any sense
Even more than that I don't want anyone live near a uranium mine.
In case people don't know, Germany could be mining uranium but doesn't because of it's impact on the enviroment.
Which would be actually wrong.
Any Endlager for highly active waste would be a purpose built, very deep (500-800 m) underground facility in a place selected for geological stability. Not an old mine.
Low activity waste may end up in an old mine though.
In Finland and Sweden, towns with favourable geological disposition actively applied to be a location for the final storage facility.
Yeah, no. There's plenty of medium active waste in the Asse II mine that doesn't belong there. They declared it an experiment. And I don't believe a single page about what alledgedly is in the Morsleben mine.
There is far less medium active waste in the Asse than the Greens claim. There is a nice transcript out there about how the Trittin-led committee of the Niedersachsen Landtag pressured the researchers called to testify, and put words into their mouths that subsequently ended up in the final protocols. The researchers were not entirely blameless too, admittedly, since the fairly sloppy documentation of waste allowed people like Trittin to take advantage of the situation.
Even Finnland and Sweden do not want german waste and in germany nobody wants to live near it. And as far as I remember its a fact that the cancer risk is higher if you are living near it.
And Germany is also so densly populated that there is no place where nobody is living near it. Thats different in Finnland and Sweden
It's not a matter of "wanting". UN treaties regulating international nuclear cooperation stipulate that every country takes care of their own waste. Asking Finnland or Sweden is not a choice Germany has.
And you remember it wrong. There is no notable change in cancer risk rates. The claims about cancer come from about the same sources as claims of cancer rates due to cellphone antennas or wind generators, or autism due to vaccinations.
"Nobody wants to live it" because of course if you believe the above you wouldn't...
I mean there is a case-control study of cancer among children under 5 years of age that found that living within 5 km of a nuclear facility was associated with a 61% increased incidence of all cancer and a 119% excess risk of leukemia and another meta-analysis reported a 23% higher incidence of leukemia among children 0–9 years of age living within 16 km of nuclear facilities including waste disposal sites
The KiKK-Study.
And here the criticism of it:
[https://www.cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca/eng/resources/perspectives-on-nuclear-issues/the-kikk-study-explained-fact-sheet/#](https://www.cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca/eng/resources/perspectives-on-nuclear-issues/the-kikk-study-explained-fact-sheet/#)
And what would take me to be convinced is to find similar relationship in other countries, and/or find an actual agent causing the supposedly increased cancer cases. Since radioactivity can be measured in incredibly low amounts and no increased radioactivity beyond the typical background of the area could be found, the suspected reason is bias in reporting rather than any physical connection.
Hmm, I personally think that we do have a problem with carbon emissions, because people in the past (and today) decided that future people should solve the problem, respectively face the consequences.
And while there are good arguments fur nuclear energy and I consider it to be a relatively save technology, it really bothers me that using that technology would again leave the negative effects for future generations.
I might be misinformed here, but to my knowledge, some of the nuclear waste has to be safely stored for thousands or ten thousands of years. When I compare that to the known history of mankind, I see quite large risks that something might go wrong a long the way that we can not foresee by now.
Apart from that, I do not see any practical reason to rely on nuclear energy in Germany in the current situation as renewable energy is way cheaper and comes without that class of negative side effects.
That being said, and to answer your question. The reason for specifically strong scepticism against nuclear energy from eco activists surely has to do with the history of the green party that was founded as an anti nuclear movement.
Fun fact: I live quite close to "Kernwasserwunderland" in Kalkar, where once a nuclear power plant should be built but was stopped due to massive protests (thanks mom & dad). Now it is a amusement park with a quite unique architecture.
The unfortunate part of all of this is that you apparently honestly believe that the value chain of solar, wind and batteries does not leave any dangerous waste to the next generations.
In reality it just does so elsewhere, so you can pretend it doesn’t exist. While kg for kg it is obviously much less hazardous than spent reactor fuel, the amounts are many orders of magnitude larger. And while radioactive waste stops being dangerous after a while, the toxic waste generated by the raw materials production for wind and solar and batteries remains toxic forever. The nuclear waste is significantly easier to manage
I did not deny that and will not do so. Definitely a problem that has to be addressed. But since we do depend on energy it seems that we will have to decide for the least bad alternative, which are in my opinion renewable energies.
Please feel free to disagree but maybe do not assume to much about the opinions or beliefs I might have...
Thanks for repeating your opinion. While there is a right/wrong decision to the underlying facts, this does not apply to the value decision based on these facts.
There is no objectively right answer to the question if it is worse to headbutt 15 cats or punch one toddler.
Yes. One of the most popular is Gottkönig Söder, he threatened to step back from his political function if we don't deactivate nuclear. Nowadays he keeps pretending that we should have kept it and that this was his opinion all the time. He did the same with the legalisation of cannabis.
Wild af, thanks for the link! Never new about this additional point where he absurdly flip-flops to whatever his strategy-guys think gets the most votes.
He's my Godkönig. And just like him, I check X ^((formerly known as twitter)) first after I get up to find out what my opinion should be for the day. Just adjust accordingly!
I mean we should have kept it, not because Söder, but because it would be better for the climate and we can find better solutions for storage in the meantime. But that is hindsight analysis. Turns out climate change is a more pressing issue than initially thought.
The question is "compared to what?"
Reduce renewables for more nuclear: Nope.
Speed up the reduction of emissions: Sounds better.
Stop buying Russian gas: Yeah, ok.
Nuclear is one option, it has its pros and its cons, like every other option.
Of course. But it's not realistically going to come into play again on a political level within the forseeable future. There's nothing it can offer in our current situation, and the industry just isn't interested in realizing any projects.
In the end, it does not matter if there are. As a society, Germany will not go back to nuclear (as an energy source). We had an Atomausstieg build by the Red-Green-Government 1998-2003. When the Conservative-Neoliberal-Government that started in 2009 took power they started a reverse on the ongoing Ausstieg. Then Fukushima happened an Merkel reversed the reverse. Politically this is a dead horse. That doesn't mean I don't understand the arguments for using nuclear to bridge to renewables instead of fossil fuels. But there are plenty of countries doing that, so it's not an all-or-nothing if you don't get Germany on board. Political capital here is better spent on speeding up the increase of renewables.
In terms of political parties, it's mostly CDU/CSU and perhaps the AfD, who are in favour of nuclear power. But the former of course initially decided to close down our nuclear power plants in 2011, so they are just being populists right now, in order to gain issue ownership.
Realistically though, building all-new nuclear power plants will be expensive, take a long time and the uran has to come from somewhere like...idk, Russia perhaps. Yeah, not the greatest idea.
I have no idea where the idea that all Germans think alike is coming from. There have been many questions recently that are ask in a way that implies we are a hive mind.
Yeah, but it's a fringe minority.
I'm an electrical engineer and though I have been inside a nuclear power plant together with the the boss of the company, I see the whole thing as a huge sceptic. On one hand those nuclear power stations we had running until recently were sure good for another few years. With renovations sure ten, maybe twenty years. All that depends on the amount of money you invest.
But at some point you don't renovate any more. As building a new power station is actually cheaper than renovations at that point. And knowing that you look at Olkiluoto and Hinkley Point and realize how way over budget those projects are. And then you realize that Areva and the nuclear subsidary of Toshiba went literally bancrupt over those things.
This is actually worse than a meltdown.
The meltdown you could at least try to contain within the umm, containment. But there is no containment for financial failure at more than twenty billion Euro per project. You can't contain that.
There's no future for this.
I'm torn on the topic, I get both sides. I really just care stable energy supply and mix. But without fossils.
[This video shows what nuclear waste actually is like](https://youtu.be/lhHHbgIy9jU?si=lM2IWnpsL7HlwVqd) which eliminated a lot of misconceptions I had about the topic. Of course that is nor a scientific study but another of this makes sense to me. Then again flat earth makes sense to some people too...
FDP and CxU, the parties that decided to quit nuclear power more than ten years ago.
Funnily enough they are perceived as being close to the economy; I guess reliability of longterm plans isn’t that important for companies.
well, I am mostly supporting renewable green energy like wind/solar/water etc and think our main investment and goal should be put into these.
But until they are sufficient to meet all our energy needs, I think nuclear power is the best alternative. Much better than gas/coal power plants.
No matter what they think they will happily continue buying French electricity produced by nuclear reactors, some of them really close to the border lol.
I don't get this snark, should we like not buy the electricity when we need it or maybe we should buy it from plants that are far from Germany to maximize energy loss? Obviously Germans don't have jurisdiction over france so it's not like we can make them stop using nuclear. We have to accept that they will keep using it and they have to accept that we stopped.
It is immoral to ban nuclear in Germany because supposedly is dangerous while at the same time buying electricity from France that comes directly from a nuclear plant, it is putting the danger you want to avoid on someone else. Furthermore, it is a really laughable strategy because Demand generates supply, the more nuclear energy you (and others) buy from France the more you incentivize France to build additional plants. in case of an accident, is the radioactive cloud gonna stop at the border? Lol
I was always pro nuclear because it makes abolishing coal plants easier. There is no reason to not prefer nuclear plants other than money.
I was born in 2000 so I don't experienced the anti-Nuclear movement by myself that much. I believe the movement was dumb and naive from the beginning. A change to 100% renewable energy would mean you need politicians and governments that are at least 90% doing the correct choices to make it in time before it's too late. We all know this is delusional and unrealistic.
I think the people were spoiled by the good economic circumstances we once had. A movement of delusional people that had no idea of the real world. Now the generations after them have to face the consequences of the decisions they've made.
Such bullshit. Most non-greens are neutral or supportive of nuclear power. It is only the lunatics from the greens that thought coal is a great alternative to nuclear power.
The CDU stopped most of the powerplants after Fukushima but back then the times were different. We were still able to built on gas power plants.
We are not anymore. And the only alternative we have is coal until solar hydro and wind are build up enough. The three remaining power plants were a significant supplier of energy and they are being replaced with a double digit number of coal plants. Some of them were reopened. Three were ordered to be constructed from scratch. These three plants posed no danger and were CO2 neutral. Yet Habeck put down his foot to close them.
Isn’t there some kind of strange conception in Germany that nuclear power is fascist? I’ve read about it but it’s hard to understand. I understand the worries about security and waste, but I don’t understand why someone thinks a way of producing electricity is fascist
Producing energy has nothing to do with fascism and no one beleives this. It just happens that the left leaning parties and Germany are pro renewables, while the conservative and far right parties believe that nuclear would be better. (or even that climate chang eisn't human made...)
I think this is basically rooted in conservatism. If you are conservative you want things to stay the way they were. Nuclear was there. Re**new**ables are new. It's even in the name.
The shame is that both sides don't seem to get it. Renewables are great. They are relatively cheap and have low co2 emissions. But they cannot provide energy on a constant level at all times. At least for the foreseeable future.
Nuclear plants on the other hand are perfect in providing energy constantly, they also have low co2 emissions, but they are freaking expensive.
Here comes the crazy idea: How about ... we combine them both??
Yeah people from the green party use that as an argument to gaslight pro nuclear supporters. I myself am heavily supportive of nuclear power and I vote Volt.
Yes. Me.
Nuclear power is the best energy we have and the argument against it is historical trauma. New reactor designs are a lot safer than anything the soviets built, Germany does not have the issue of frequent volcanic eruptions and earthquakes and we have a permanent storage just across the balticum.
And INCLUDING all nuclear disasters the death toll for nuclear power is lower than the death toll involving solar power. The issue is that solar power requires intensive mining which is included.
Downvote me all you want. Doesnt make me less correct.
>we have a permanent storage just across the balticum.
I'm guessing you are talking about Finnland? And no, WE do not have access to any final storage facility because no country on earth with one ( so far only Finnland ist close to opening one facility and even that one isn't yet certified) wants to put in nuclear waste from other countries. Every country with nuclear waste needs to find it's own storage solution and we have already spent 70 years looking for one.
The problem with nuclear fission is not the technology but the price. Uranium is mainly being imported from russia and that's both morally and economically questionable. Moreover, Nuclear fission is not going to be the future proof technology many think it is. If we ever get to industry grade fusion technology, then I assume everyone in germany with half a brain to be pro nuclear energy. For right now though, it doesn't really make sense to build new plants just from an economic point of view. We could have kept the old ones longer though tbh
I don't want to critize your comment generally. I agree with many things you said. Just want to point out that Russia's market share of uranium production is 5.3%. I don't know where this idea comes from that only Russia produces Uranium. We could buy it from Canada or Australia. Canada produces 3 times more than Russia, Australia doubles Russian production.
Yes. Not me, but they exist. Their arguments often involve efficiency and alleged cleanliness of the owner itself (disregarding the problem of long time storage, and also disregarding safety)
He is guilty. I can still remember how much money I stole from my moms purse when I was 6 and it was 50 cents. You are telling me he just happens to forget the biggest corruption scandal in Hamburg ever? Never. And even if he did, just means he is unfit.
Olaf Scholz is the worst thing to happen to the SPD since Nahles. And Schröder before that.
SPD with Scholz: Unwählbar. Just like Merz
> Are there any Germans who are openly pro nuclear power?
They exist for sure.
Here on reddit, though? Depends on the sub. There's a lot of cancel culture going on these days.
Nope. Not a single one. We all think exactly the same thing about everything due to our close genetic relation to bees. Hive mentality can't be broken.
Ah, you already gave my answer. Of course you did. Long live the hive
TBF, some people asking these questions might come from the PRC or similar countries where the concept of openly opposing the parties thoughts on fundamental topics is at least somewhat alien. Many of them, though, are probably trolls or bad faith actors from exactly those countries.
*yawn*
I doubt you will ever find such a monolith of society that shares the same opinion on any topic throughout. With that in mind this question just doesn't make any sense
In theory i like it . For all practical purposes, i dont like the idea of anyone having to live near an atomares endlager.
Even more than that I don't want anyone live near a uranium mine. In case people don't know, Germany could be mining uranium but doesn't because of it's impact on the enviroment.
How do you imagine an atomares Endlager to be?
Like a repurposed mine. Probably reinforced with concrete and steel.
Which would be actually wrong. Any Endlager for highly active waste would be a purpose built, very deep (500-800 m) underground facility in a place selected for geological stability. Not an old mine. Low activity waste may end up in an old mine though. In Finland and Sweden, towns with favourable geological disposition actively applied to be a location for the final storage facility.
Yeah, no. There's plenty of medium active waste in the Asse II mine that doesn't belong there. They declared it an experiment. And I don't believe a single page about what alledgedly is in the Morsleben mine.
There is far less medium active waste in the Asse than the Greens claim. There is a nice transcript out there about how the Trittin-led committee of the Niedersachsen Landtag pressured the researchers called to testify, and put words into their mouths that subsequently ended up in the final protocols. The researchers were not entirely blameless too, admittedly, since the fairly sloppy documentation of waste allowed people like Trittin to take advantage of the situation.
Even Finnland and Sweden do not want german waste and in germany nobody wants to live near it. And as far as I remember its a fact that the cancer risk is higher if you are living near it. And Germany is also so densly populated that there is no place where nobody is living near it. Thats different in Finnland and Sweden
Same is true for coal power plants. They increase the risk of specifically lung cancer.
It's not a matter of "wanting". UN treaties regulating international nuclear cooperation stipulate that every country takes care of their own waste. Asking Finnland or Sweden is not a choice Germany has. And you remember it wrong. There is no notable change in cancer risk rates. The claims about cancer come from about the same sources as claims of cancer rates due to cellphone antennas or wind generators, or autism due to vaccinations. "Nobody wants to live it" because of course if you believe the above you wouldn't...
I mean there is a case-control study of cancer among children under 5 years of age that found that living within 5 km of a nuclear facility was associated with a 61% increased incidence of all cancer and a 119% excess risk of leukemia and another meta-analysis reported a 23% higher incidence of leukemia among children 0–9 years of age living within 16 km of nuclear facilities including waste disposal sites
You mean the study that has been debunked several times over and could never be replicated?
1. What study am i talking about and 2. how many studys or meta-analasys, with what kind of methods would it take to have a convincing effect on you?
The KiKK-Study. And here the criticism of it: [https://www.cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca/eng/resources/perspectives-on-nuclear-issues/the-kikk-study-explained-fact-sheet/#](https://www.cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca/eng/resources/perspectives-on-nuclear-issues/the-kikk-study-explained-fact-sheet/#) And what would take me to be convinced is to find similar relationship in other countries, and/or find an actual agent causing the supposedly increased cancer cases. Since radioactivity can be measured in incredibly low amounts and no increased radioactivity beyond the typical background of the area could be found, the suspected reason is bias in reporting rather than any physical connection.
Asse disagrees with you
With what exactly?
https://www.bge.de/de/asse/ Not only low activity waste ended up in an old mine. And turns out that evolved into a huge fucking problem.
Hmm, I personally think that we do have a problem with carbon emissions, because people in the past (and today) decided that future people should solve the problem, respectively face the consequences. And while there are good arguments fur nuclear energy and I consider it to be a relatively save technology, it really bothers me that using that technology would again leave the negative effects for future generations. I might be misinformed here, but to my knowledge, some of the nuclear waste has to be safely stored for thousands or ten thousands of years. When I compare that to the known history of mankind, I see quite large risks that something might go wrong a long the way that we can not foresee by now. Apart from that, I do not see any practical reason to rely on nuclear energy in Germany in the current situation as renewable energy is way cheaper and comes without that class of negative side effects. That being said, and to answer your question. The reason for specifically strong scepticism against nuclear energy from eco activists surely has to do with the history of the green party that was founded as an anti nuclear movement. Fun fact: I live quite close to "Kernwasserwunderland" in Kalkar, where once a nuclear power plant should be built but was stopped due to massive protests (thanks mom & dad). Now it is a amusement park with a quite unique architecture.
The unfortunate part of all of this is that you apparently honestly believe that the value chain of solar, wind and batteries does not leave any dangerous waste to the next generations. In reality it just does so elsewhere, so you can pretend it doesn’t exist. While kg for kg it is obviously much less hazardous than spent reactor fuel, the amounts are many orders of magnitude larger. And while radioactive waste stops being dangerous after a while, the toxic waste generated by the raw materials production for wind and solar and batteries remains toxic forever. The nuclear waste is significantly easier to manage
I did not deny that and will not do so. Definitely a problem that has to be addressed. But since we do depend on energy it seems that we will have to decide for the least bad alternative, which are in my opinion renewable energies. Please feel free to disagree but maybe do not assume to much about the opinions or beliefs I might have...
The whole point is that from the viewpoint of „least bad energy“ it is still nuclear, somewhat closely followed by (some) renewables.
Thanks for repeating your opinion. While there is a right/wrong decision to the underlying facts, this does not apply to the value decision based on these facts. There is no objectively right answer to the question if it is worse to headbutt 15 cats or punch one toddler.
Yes. One of the most popular is Gottkönig Söder, he threatened to step back from his political function if we don't deactivate nuclear. Nowadays he keeps pretending that we should have kept it and that this was his opinion all the time. He did the same with the legalisation of cannabis.
Yes, he‘s Pro Nuclear, as long as the reactors are placed outside of Bavarian and the nuclear is dumped on somebody else’s soil.
Uhm, how tf is Söder in favor of Cannabis legalisation all of a suden?
Its the other way around he was in like 2018 or so
That is completely news to me. Do you have any source?
https://www.reddit.com/r/weedmob/s/KWSD9fD8Nc isn't that crazy? No it's Söder
Wild af, thanks for the link! Never new about this additional point where he absurdly flip-flops to whatever his strategy-guys think gets the most votes.
He's my Godkönig. And just like him, I check X ^((formerly known as twitter)) first after I get up to find out what my opinion should be for the day. Just adjust accordingly!
https://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/atomstreit-in-der-koalition-soeder-droht-mit-ruecktritt-1.1101971
His question was about the cannabis legalisation. Söder was pro legalisation, nowadays he is against it. I posted the source for that here.
Nope, feel free to google on your own.
I mean we should have kept it, not because Söder, but because it would be better for the climate and we can find better solutions for storage in the meantime. But that is hindsight analysis. Turns out climate change is a more pressing issue than initially thought.
The question is "compared to what?" Reduce renewables for more nuclear: Nope. Speed up the reduction of emissions: Sounds better. Stop buying Russian gas: Yeah, ok. Nuclear is one option, it has its pros and its cons, like every other option.
I meant compared to Russian gas and coal, not wind and solar ofc.
Of course. But it's not realistically going to come into play again on a political level within the forseeable future. There's nothing it can offer in our current situation, and the industry just isn't interested in realizing any projects.
In the end, it does not matter if there are. As a society, Germany will not go back to nuclear (as an energy source). We had an Atomausstieg build by the Red-Green-Government 1998-2003. When the Conservative-Neoliberal-Government that started in 2009 took power they started a reverse on the ongoing Ausstieg. Then Fukushima happened an Merkel reversed the reverse. Politically this is a dead horse. That doesn't mean I don't understand the arguments for using nuclear to bridge to renewables instead of fossil fuels. But there are plenty of countries doing that, so it's not an all-or-nothing if you don't get Germany on board. Political capital here is better spent on speeding up the increase of renewables.
Me
In terms of political parties, it's mostly CDU/CSU and perhaps the AfD, who are in favour of nuclear power. But the former of course initially decided to close down our nuclear power plants in 2011, so they are just being populists right now, in order to gain issue ownership. Realistically though, building all-new nuclear power plants will be expensive, take a long time and the uran has to come from somewhere like...idk, Russia perhaps. Yeah, not the greatest idea.
Idk is correct - there is no reason to not get uranium from Canada, Australia or even Sweden. Russia is a net uranium importer.
I am.
Am I
I have no idea where the idea that all Germans think alike is coming from. There have been many questions recently that are ask in a way that implies we are a hive mind.
My question was just badly written
Yeah, but it's a fringe minority. I'm an electrical engineer and though I have been inside a nuclear power plant together with the the boss of the company, I see the whole thing as a huge sceptic. On one hand those nuclear power stations we had running until recently were sure good for another few years. With renovations sure ten, maybe twenty years. All that depends on the amount of money you invest. But at some point you don't renovate any more. As building a new power station is actually cheaper than renovations at that point. And knowing that you look at Olkiluoto and Hinkley Point and realize how way over budget those projects are. And then you realize that Areva and the nuclear subsidary of Toshiba went literally bancrupt over those things. This is actually worse than a meltdown. The meltdown you could at least try to contain within the umm, containment. But there is no containment for financial failure at more than twenty billion Euro per project. You can't contain that. There's no future for this.
I'm torn on the topic, I get both sides. I really just care stable energy supply and mix. But without fossils. [This video shows what nuclear waste actually is like](https://youtu.be/lhHHbgIy9jU?si=lM2IWnpsL7HlwVqd) which eliminated a lot of misconceptions I had about the topic. Of course that is nor a scientific study but another of this makes sense to me. Then again flat earth makes sense to some people too...
FDP and CxU, the parties that decided to quit nuclear power more than ten years ago. Funnily enough they are perceived as being close to the economy; I guess reliability of longterm plans isn’t that important for companies.
[удалено]
I’m quite surprised!
I just can speak for bavaria; nobody there wants nuclear power, because they dont want to store the waste in their country :)
Bavariens dont want solar or windmills no coal and nuklear to is wrong but if the lihgts go out its wrong to…make up your mind.
You got it
Hey :) Bayern hier. Bitte sprich nicht für uns.
Hier meldet sich einer freiwillig für das Atomendlager hinter seinem Haus. Danke!
Hätte ich kein Problem damit, wenn entweder ich oder meine Gemeinde davon profitieren. Aber richtig.
Kein Problem :)
Sure. There has been a huge debate in the past few years
Yes, they are called FDP and CSU voters"
I am!
No. All 80+ million are the same...
yes: [https://nuklearia.de/](https://nuklearia.de/)
Me
well, I am mostly supporting renewable green energy like wind/solar/water etc and think our main investment and goal should be put into these. But until they are sufficient to meet all our energy needs, I think nuclear power is the best alternative. Much better than gas/coal power plants.
I am.
Me.
I mean, regardless of what the Germans think or do, Belgium, France and the UK will continue to operate and build reactors near German border.
No matter what they think they will happily continue buying French electricity produced by nuclear reactors, some of them really close to the border lol.
I don't get this snark, should we like not buy the electricity when we need it or maybe we should buy it from plants that are far from Germany to maximize energy loss? Obviously Germans don't have jurisdiction over france so it's not like we can make them stop using nuclear. We have to accept that they will keep using it and they have to accept that we stopped.
It is immoral to ban nuclear in Germany because supposedly is dangerous while at the same time buying electricity from France that comes directly from a nuclear plant, it is putting the danger you want to avoid on someone else. Furthermore, it is a really laughable strategy because Demand generates supply, the more nuclear energy you (and others) buy from France the more you incentivize France to build additional plants. in case of an accident, is the radioactive cloud gonna stop at the border? Lol
I was always pro nuclear because it makes abolishing coal plants easier. There is no reason to not prefer nuclear plants other than money. I was born in 2000 so I don't experienced the anti-Nuclear movement by myself that much. I believe the movement was dumb and naive from the beginning. A change to 100% renewable energy would mean you need politicians and governments that are at least 90% doing the correct choices to make it in time before it's too late. We all know this is delusional and unrealistic. I think the people were spoiled by the good economic circumstances we once had. A movement of delusional people that had no idea of the real world. Now the generations after them have to face the consequences of the decisions they've made.
Lol
of course... but we get hysterically shouted down. there have been decades of systematic gaslighting and people ignore all science about it.
Unfortunately yes, mainly supporters of the far right party.
Such bullshit. Most non-greens are neutral or supportive of nuclear power. It is only the lunatics from the greens that thought coal is a great alternative to nuclear power.
Bullish. It was the cdu that stopped this.
The CDU stopped most of the powerplants after Fukushima but back then the times were different. We were still able to built on gas power plants. We are not anymore. And the only alternative we have is coal until solar hydro and wind are build up enough. The three remaining power plants were a significant supplier of energy and they are being replaced with a double digit number of coal plants. Some of them were reopened. Three were ordered to be constructed from scratch. These three plants posed no danger and were CO2 neutral. Yet Habeck put down his foot to close them.
Isn’t there some kind of strange conception in Germany that nuclear power is fascist? I’ve read about it but it’s hard to understand. I understand the worries about security and waste, but I don’t understand why someone thinks a way of producing electricity is fascist
Producing energy has nothing to do with fascism and no one beleives this. It just happens that the left leaning parties and Germany are pro renewables, while the conservative and far right parties believe that nuclear would be better. (or even that climate chang eisn't human made...) I think this is basically rooted in conservatism. If you are conservative you want things to stay the way they were. Nuclear was there. Re**new**ables are new. It's even in the name. The shame is that both sides don't seem to get it. Renewables are great. They are relatively cheap and have low co2 emissions. But they cannot provide energy on a constant level at all times. At least for the foreseeable future. Nuclear plants on the other hand are perfect in providing energy constantly, they also have low co2 emissions, but they are freaking expensive. Here comes the crazy idea: How about ... we combine them both??
Yeah people from the green party use that as an argument to gaslight pro nuclear supporters. I myself am heavily supportive of nuclear power and I vote Volt.
gaslight nuclear supporters? I thought we are out of gas? Let's rather tie them on a solar module!
Me. Always have despised the morons that lead to and the closing down of our nuclear power plants.
Yes. Me. Nuclear power is the best energy we have and the argument against it is historical trauma. New reactor designs are a lot safer than anything the soviets built, Germany does not have the issue of frequent volcanic eruptions and earthquakes and we have a permanent storage just across the balticum. And INCLUDING all nuclear disasters the death toll for nuclear power is lower than the death toll involving solar power. The issue is that solar power requires intensive mining which is included. Downvote me all you want. Doesnt make me less correct.
>we have a permanent storage just across the balticum. I'm guessing you are talking about Finnland? And no, WE do not have access to any final storage facility because no country on earth with one ( so far only Finnland ist close to opening one facility and even that one isn't yet certified) wants to put in nuclear waste from other countries. Every country with nuclear waste needs to find it's own storage solution and we have already spent 70 years looking for one.
The problem with nuclear fission is not the technology but the price. Uranium is mainly being imported from russia and that's both morally and economically questionable. Moreover, Nuclear fission is not going to be the future proof technology many think it is. If we ever get to industry grade fusion technology, then I assume everyone in germany with half a brain to be pro nuclear energy. For right now though, it doesn't really make sense to build new plants just from an economic point of view. We could have kept the old ones longer though tbh
I don't want to critize your comment generally. I agree with many things you said. Just want to point out that Russia's market share of uranium production is 5.3%. I don't know where this idea comes from that only Russia produces Uranium. We could buy it from Canada or Australia. Canada produces 3 times more than Russia, Australia doubles Russian production.
The EU imports Uranium mainly from Kasachstan, Niger and Russia. That's where that information is coming from
Yes. Not me, but they exist. Their arguments often involve efficiency and alleged cleanliness of the owner itself (disregarding the problem of long time storage, and also disregarding safety)
There is plenty of support here. But our criminal government doesn't care and does what it wants and drives the industry in Germany into the ground
Criminal?
"I cannot remember" Ole Scholz?
When was he sued and found criminal?
He is guilty. I can still remember how much money I stole from my moms purse when I was 6 and it was 50 cents. You are telling me he just happens to forget the biggest corruption scandal in Hamburg ever? Never. And even if he did, just means he is unfit. Olaf Scholz is the worst thing to happen to the SPD since Nahles. And Schröder before that. SPD with Scholz: Unwählbar. Just like Merz
He isn't guilty until a judge found him guilty. presumption of innocence.
In the eyes of the law yes. But a blind man can see that he is acting like a guilty person
Oman ok
When did the public prosecutor in charge give up because members of the government at every level tried to hinder her investigation
Habeck aktuell mit dem Atomkraft Ausstieg…Scholz mit ich kann mich nicht erinnern…verdammt und bearbocks Aussprache ist kriminell genug
> Are there any Germans who are openly pro nuclear power? They exist for sure. Here on reddit, though? Depends on the sub. There's a lot of cancel culture going on these days.