German poll: Majority for return to nuclear energy

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.
  
  Even before nuclear power was the most expensive type in the energy mix iirc.
  
  You can't get them running again. They're gone.
- 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.
  
  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
  
  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
  
  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.
- 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
- 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!!

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

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.
- 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 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.

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)
https://www.ikts.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ikts/abteilungen/umwelt_und_verfahrenstechnik/technologieoekonomik_nachhaltigkeitsanalyse/oekonomische_analyse_nachhaltigkeit/241030_Fraunhofer-Faktencheck_Kernenergie.pdf
- 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.

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.
  
  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.
  
  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
- 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.
  
  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.

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.
- 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.
  
  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.
  
  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.
- 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:
  https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/energy-power-supply/pros-and-cons-of-sodium-cooled-nuclear-reactors-for-data-center-energy
  Not sure how practical they are outside the general idea, but it looks promising.
- 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 removed.
- 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/
  
  Now list all the fossil fuels related incidents.
  Nuclear + renewables is the way to go to stop the climate crisis in the foreseeable future.
  
  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.
  
  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...
- There’s no good reason to be against nuclear power.
  Ahh, you gotta keep in mind: useful idiots.
- 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.
- 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.
  
  As for coal, it's even more expensive when it kills off the planet.
  
  How does the cost compare to the starting and operating a coal mine?
  What about oil wells and refineries?
- Well yes there is a very good argument against nuclear and that is that it replaces solar energy.
  solar energy might have been expensive in the past but now it's the cheapest form of energy in history. we needed an absence of nuclear in the past to have a motivation to develop green, safe, efficient energy. and solar is the best way to do that.
  i also ask you to consider the future. solar energy gets cheaper the more is deployed of it, so it will get even cheaper in the future. we have seen enormous price drops for transistors (computers) in the past, and solar panels are semiconductors, just like transistors are semiconductors. who says that we wouldn't also see similar price drops for solar energy in the future? maybe solar panels will be cheap as paper in the future.
- lel mongo
- 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.

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.

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!

We have an almost indefinite source of energy below our feet and almost nobody talks about. Screw nuclear, go geothermal
- It's not an either-or.
  We need as many sources of energy as possible to increase the available supply and reduce the cost.
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  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.
- 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.
- 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.

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?

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.
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  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.
- 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.

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.
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  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?
  
  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.
- Why would you add such nonsensical conditions?

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.

https://youtu.be/wnR6pgK8WjE
https://youtu.be/5aRcXyhDiuQ
Two videos which are dissecting the German case of nuclear in a fair manner.

For those who understand German, I would like to leave this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmixpDsrKR4
Sorry everyone else.
Bonus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoaBDxF_OF4

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

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.
- 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.

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.
- Because it makes zero sense.
  Translation: They can't make an egregious amount of profit off of everyone else's hard work.
  Nuclear energy isn't as profitable as oil, but that doesn't mean it's not economically viable.
  Business owners will simply have to make less profit, which is fine. There are plenty of people who work harder than them for less.
  
  The problem is that it's not as profitable as renewables. If you push this, it will be at the cost of those.

Good, nuclear is one of the only ways we will be able to address carbon emissions
- What are you talking about? Have you seen what kind of plants have been built world wide in the last 10 years?
  
  Link 'em

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.
  
  You literally are nuclear waste.