Seeing lots of takes about nuclear power and its opponents. Yes, nuclear power could be an important element of a climate solution. Yes, the world needs to build more nuclear power plants. But it's absurd to blame environmental activists for the fact that it hasn't happened yet.
https://twitter.com/moms4nuclear/status/1304473231743574016
The primary reason why countries with large CO2 emissions haven't gone nuclear is economic: the upfront cost of a nuclear plant is a large multiple of that of a coal plant. That's why coal is king in India, for instance. Nothing to do with activists.
Or consider China, the largest emitter of CO2 today. You think environmental activism is why China hasn't built more nuclear plants? Lol. Economically, coal has been "good enough" -- assuming we ignore its health costs and long-term environmental costs.
The 2nd reason, especially valid in the US, is the influence of the oil & coal lobbies. The US had the means to fully embrace nuclear power, but the reason it hasn't has little to do with public opinion or environmentalism. It was already under-investing before Chernobyl.
The one country that has really embraced nuclear electricity is France. This has happened despite a significant "green" movement. The primary motivation there has been achieving energy independence -- an argument that doesn't work for a coal & oil producing country like the US.
In conclusion... Outside perhaps Germany and Japan, the anti-nuclear movement has had very little influence on adoption. If you want to the world to adopt nuclear energy, you have to focus on the actual reasons why that hasn't happened yet, not on some imaginary opponent.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
