The anti-nuclear lobby won because nuclear has scary failure modes that have been hyped for decades and in general people aren’t good at assessing risk. Unfortu

The anti-nuclear lobby won because nuclear has scary failure modes that have been hyped for decades and in general people aren’t good at assessing risk. Unfortunately, I don’t see that changing. But, the climate change luminaries almost unanimously have been behind that opposition to nuclear for decades despite nuclear being the only viable non-fossil-fuel option for cloudy and not very windy geographies. I cannot give a pass on good risk assessment to people whose mission is to spread awareness of climate change risk and who say that risk is literally existential and who do not promote nuclear regardless of the relatively small chance of failure. I can only conclude that they either don’t believe their own rhetoric or they don’t want/care if the decarbonization effort succeeds, or they are ignorant of suitable geographies for renewables. No matter what it’s a total credibility destroyer.