Every conversation around nuclear starts and ends with "but Greenpeace!". That's ascribing Greenpeace not just a little more influence than is realistic. The re

Every conversation around nuclear starts and ends with "but Greenpeace!". That's ascribing Greenpeace not just a little more influence than is realistic. The reason why we see less and less investment in new nuclear has more to do with the economics of it all, and that large scale public spending is a bit more problematic than half a century ago. I don't know about Greenpeace specifically, but the environmental movement as a whole has been pretty consistent through this whole time in their criticism of fossil fuels. You may or may not agree with criticisms around nuclear power, but that doesn't make it a double standard.