My specific complaint with the article is that it's wrong and dangerous to consider nuclear through a narrow lens and therefore not a balanced and unbiased view.
The title of the article is "A beginner’s guide to the debate over nuclear power and climate change", and is about the various perspectives of the DNC candidates in a specific 'Climate Change' debate.
Not sure how it's a problem that he's writing about it from a climate change perspective, and even has a disclaimer that it doesn't have all the details about the pro and anti nuclear debate.
>I’m not going to review all that history (it could fill a book); instead, I’ll approach nuclear power purely through the lens of climate change.
Oh sorry, I thought that was obvious. It's a problem because you might read the article and start thinking that nuclear energy could be a reasonable solution to our climate change problem, but it can never be, for reasons that the author decided are outside the scope of his article.
Not sure how it's a problem that he's writing about it from a climate change perspective, and even has a disclaimer that it doesn't have all the details about the pro and anti nuclear debate.
>I’m not going to review all that history (it could fill a book); instead, I’ll approach nuclear power purely through the lens of climate change.