[apex3stoker]

>environmentalists were bought by gas extraction people

In the US, opposition to nuclear energy is more like opposition to homeless shelters - people don't want the plants near them. I don't think environmentlists are that powerful politically as to significantly impact the trajectory of nuclear power policies in the US, otherwise, they would have the power to significantly impact climate change policies too.

Besides, what I have seen is that environmentalists are pretty divided in term of nuclear energy. There are strong opponents like green peace and Sierra clubs, there are strong supporters and there are many who are ambivalent. This further reduces their political power as a group.

I think nuclear energy supporters should stop blaming environmentalists as they are pretty much non-factor if they want nuclear power.

[throwaway894345]

There's tons of FUD about nuclear waste, including with respect to environmental impacts. I think environmentalists have been coming around to nuclear, but I'm pretty sure that's a more recent development. At least my perception circa 10 years ago was that environmentalists were largely (if not overwhelmingly) opposed to nuclear. Certainly for a long while, environmentalists worked (perhaps unwittingly) with the fossil fuel industry to promote personal responsibility and lifestyle campaigns ("everyone needs to go vegan", "we just need more recycling", "get rid of SUVs", etc) rather than substantial energy reforms (like nuclear or carbon tax).

[apex3stoker]

I don't think nuclear waste is a key factor, but cost overrun is. Source: https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11132930/nuclear-power-costs-u...

[Melatonic]

Environmentalists are not against Nuclear generally - they are just against the shitty ways governments have stored the waste in the past. When a government cheaps out and ships the waste to some far off pacific island and does not invest as much as it should building a proper containment setup and then it all leaks into the ocean it becomes a big problem for everyone and then environmentalists are of course pissed. When done properly I would guess the majority would be relatively fine with it (although they may still prefer cleaner options).

[letitbeirie]

Greenpeace's take on nuclear power [1]:

> Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous and expensive. Say no to new nukes. > > Nuclear energy has no place in a safe, clean, sustainable future. Nuclear energy is both expensive and dangerous, and just because nuclear pollution is invisible doesn’t mean it’s clean. Renewable energy is better for the environment, the economy, and doesn’t come with the risk of a nuclear meltdown.

The Sierra Club's [2]:

> The Sierra Club continues to oppose construction of any new commercial nuclear fission power plants. Further, the Sierra Club supports the systematic reduction of society's dependence on nuclear fission as a source of electric power and recommends a phased closure and decommissioning of operating commercial nuclear fission electric power reactors.

[1] https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/fighting-climate-chaos/issues...

[2] https://www.sierraclub.org/policy/energy/nuclear-power