[melling]

Don’t forget environmentalists have been fighting against nuclear energy for decades.

Update: Since I’m being downvoted I’m going to add a little sting:

Good luck with your solar power web servers and skipping flights.

Poor judgement really does have a price. It’s now inevitable that it’s going to get a bit warmer… everywhere. We’ll be lucky to hit Net Zero by 2100.

[energy123]

Last year, China installed 1.5GW of nuclear and 300GW of renewables. China's total coal use decreased as they decommissioned and under-utilized more coal than they installed.

This same pattern is occurring everywhere, regardless of local politics or local economic system. See Texas as another example.

It's because new renewables is superior at contemporary market prices. Markets have decided. Governments have decided. Everyone has decided.

It's so boring to relitigate this constantly on HN. It's like debating whether the sky is blue. Ridiculous that this comes up so often.

[leonidasrup]

1 GW of renewables is not equivalent to 1 GW of nuclear or coal capacity,you need backup.

China is still building large amount of new coal power plants. In 2025, construction began on 83GW of new coal capacity – down from 98GW in 2024.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/rush-for-new-coal-in-china-hits-...

For comparision the total EU’s existing coal fleet is 109 GW.

https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/coal-is-not-making-...

The growth Chinas coal consumption is slowing down, but still growth no reduction in 2026.

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat...

[energy123]

However you may try to put lipstick on a pig, the core of the matter is unchanged. China's coal use decreased, and they barely install any nuclear compared to renewables.

[leonidasrup]

Don't present China as a green champion. China's total coal use increased, China's coal use for electricity production has decreased.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-coal-power-drops-in-chi...

Coal has many uses in China in comparison with US

https://www.iea.org/countries/china/coal

https://www.iea.org/countries/united-states/coal

For example China has strongly expanded in making liquid fuels from coal.

"China consumes about 380 million metric tons of coal as a feedstock for chemical and liquid fuel production, representing about 8% of the country’s total coal consumption of 4,939 million metric tons."

The amount of coal that China uses only as a feedstock for chemical and liquid fuel production is bigger than total coal consumption in Europe or total coal consumption in US.

https://thecoalhub.com/china-consumes-almost-400-mt-of-coal-...

https://asiatimes.com/2025/07/chinas-climate-gambit-bet-on-c...

[2ndorderthought]

Nuclear is useful but it's hard to see it as a panacea. Renewable energy on the other hand is hard to beat. The economics of it keeps getting better, and previous estimates of the lifecycle of things like solar was grossly misrepresented.

Cancelling wind power contracts etc was a huge mistake.

[Newlaptop]

"Environmentalists" is a large, diverse group and nuclear energy has been a controversial topic splitting the group for decades.

Many environmentalists are pro-nuclear, and viewed exclusively through an environmental lens, nuclear is likely the best energy source.

Other people share the "environmentalist" label because they care about clean air, unpolluted rivers, biodiversity, climate change, etc but they oppose nuclear on unrelated grounds (eg, as part of an anti nuclear weapon proliferation agenda) or out of fear of adverse events from damage to an energy facility.

The "pro-environment but anti-nuclear" subgroup held power within the Democrat party in the US through most of the cold war era. The "pro-environment, pro-nuclear" subgroup is now the largest group within the Democrat voting base, but some of the people and all of the regulations from the 1960s-1990s are still in power.

[raddan]

Good reply; factual. But in case you are not aware, “Democrat party” is a bit of a slur [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)

[triceratops]

"Environmentalists" have been fighting against many things for decades: eating meat, deforestation, whaling, air travel, mining, automobiles, fur.

Assuming it was really environmentalists who did it, why is nuclear energy the only thing they succeeded at stopping?

[pjc50]

Yes, and that dates from the era when everyone thought that a "nuclear winter" (from an exchange of nuclear bombs between the US and USSR) was a more immediate risk than a long slow problem of climate change. That's what the French government carried out a terrorist attack against Greenpeace in New Zealand for: the Rainbow Warrior was protesting against French nuclear weapons testing.

Has everyone forgotten that the current crisis kicked off over the question of exactly how much uranium of what purity Iran is allowed to have? Do people really think that every country in the world should have multiple nuclear reactors?

[L_226]

Do people really think that uranium consuming reactors that produce plutonium are the only type of nuclear reactors?

[pjc50]

Of the operating set of reactors today, what percentage are those vs., say, Thorium?

[L_226]

yes, but that is not the point. The point is that countries pursued uranium reactors as a priority to produce plutonium for weapons. It did not / does not have to be this way, and the conflation of all nuclear reactors as either being at risk of meltdown or linked to nuclear weapons has resulted in the current situation. The green movement did us all a disservice by choosing not to clarify the difference, and here we are in 2026 still burning coal, which continues to produce more radioactive waste than all the nuclear reactors ever built - and released directly into the environment!

[leonidasrup]

There are many claims that Thorium fuel cycle is nuclear proliferation safe, it is safer but not perfectly safe. Uranium-233 bread during the Thorium fuel cycle can used to construct nuclear weapons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-233#Weapon_material

"A declassified 1966 memo from the US nuclear program stated that uranium-233 has been shown to be highly satisfactory as a weapons material, though it was only superior to plutonium in rare circumstances."

Many nuclear energy opponents require absolute nuclear proliferation safety.

[GorbachevyChase]

I was under the impression that Carl Sagan basically made up the concept of nuclear winter because of his political alignment.

And, yes, every country should have nuclear power and nuclear deterrence. Please contrast how the US negotiated with North Korea and Libya. Or what happened to Ukraine after they denuclearized. You might be impressed at how palatable peace becomes when leadership has to consider their personal safety and not just cynical economic and political calculus in their use of force.

[noosphr]

Yes.

[Zigurd]

Please. Show me a nuke that was under 10 billion over budget and less than 20 years late.

Seriously. Don't even try to insert nuclear power into the debate before you show it can be competently built, never mind safely run and waste safely disposed. But what about the French you say! The French are discovering they forgot to set aside money for decommissioning.

[SanDiegoSun]

This seems to be a western issue. China has been producing nuclear reactors quite cost effectively.

Radiant with their modular reactors seems to be doing quite well.

[bell-cot]

If you look at how much time and money the French poured into their nuclear plant construction project (and several other pre-decommissioning issues) things look rather less rosy.

Also, it was a very high priority for France - keep in mind Napoleon's quote about the relative importance of moral and material.

More critically: The logic of "The French did {extremely complex thing} fairly well in the late 1900's, therefore we can also" is very similar to the logic of "SpaceX designs and operates reusable rockets with hundreds of launches per year and no failures, therefore we can also". NO, sorry, you are just fantasizing about rocket science somehow being easy for you. SpaceX has lots of highly motivated would-be competitors - many of them far better financed than SpaceX was - but the hard fact is that zero of those can actually do what SpaceX is doing.

[leonidasrup]

Over 15 years France installed 56 nuclear reactors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Messme...

The costs were not small, but probably smaller than the costs of German Energiewende. Messmer plan needed not only money, but also capable heavy industry and consistent political support.

https://theinnovationattorney.substack.com/p/the-messmer-pla...

https://carboncredits.com/nuclear-education-how-germany-lost...

Had France have such rich coal reserves as Germany, they would probably build coal power plants instead of nuclear power plants.

Germany 39022 millions short tons

France 176 millions short tons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_coal_rese...

[croes]

Because it’s a dangerous technology where profit over security can have severe consequences.

Not to mention the new risks now that drone wars are a thing. All those Chemical plants are already valuable target, no need to additional nuclear ones.

[gruez]

>Because it’s a dangerous technology where profit over security can have severe consequences.

Yeah it's far better to have power plants kill a steady stream of people, but in a banal way that's hard to attribute, like coal power plants causing lung cancer.

[JKCalhoun]

No, but hydroelectric works pretty well. There's a reason they recycle aluminum, etc. (power-hungry industries—crypto-mining, ha ha) along the Columbia River, etc.

So build your data centers there. No reason to choose the least evil.

[applied_heat]

Hydro electric as a resource is probably mostly exploited - are there a lot of big hydro projects left to build? If there are they must be difficult or expensive or they would have already been built.

[throwaway173738]

In the Cascades they’re deconstructing dams as the benefits were oversold while the maintenance costs and environmental impacts were underestimated.

[Sabinus]

The Green movement in Australia was started over the successful blocking of a hydroelectric dam. Rivers are usually highly ecologically significant.

[Cthulhu_]

Which is why coal power plants are being shuttered everywhere in favor of gas and renewables (and I suppose nuclear, sometimes).

[croes]

Because the only options are coal or nuclear?

Wind and solar with storage is far better than nuclear.

[2ndorderthought]

It's not nuclear or coal. There is wind, solar, etc.

[duskdozer]

Something tells me if they manage to get nuclear plants accepted, they will be built far, far away from the billionaires' doomsday bunkers.

[cucumber3732842]

Even ignoring nuclear environmentalists are still the enemy here.

Green energy is diffuse. Fields of solar. Ridges dotted with turbines. Each unit needs a power cable running away from it, access roads, etc, etc. A lot of area has to be developed for a given payback (sellable power).

Environmentalists and have been instrumental in making it economically impossible to develop land cheap enough to make low value density projects like that pencil out.

The higher power cost states in the US would likely be dotted with all manner of solar infill if not for up front costs that these shortsighted and selfish people have imposed on any land alteration larger than approx SFH lot size. Farmer Johnson would love nothing more than to put up solar on that ~2ac hillside he owns but cannot farm economically. Neither he nor some 3rd party who would put up the panels will shell out half a mil for an EPA CG permit just to clear the vegetation because the panels will never pay that back in their lives.

The economics of compliance are why the only greenfield development that happens these days is value dense commercial stuff (shopping plaza, big box store, data center, office buildings etc) or dense SFH development.

The most rosy possible outlook is that we "just" wait for the hippie boomers who cooked this crap up to croak, shit can the clean water act and come up with some new way of regulating development that doesn't saddle these super low impact projects (it's hard to be lower impact than panels or turbines) with fixed-ish costs that are a non-starter except at huge scale.

But of course there are so many parties who are making rent off this broken system who won't go down without a fight.

[Spooky23]

Environmentalists are full of scammers.

Right wing idiots are against solar and wind. Left wing idiots are against nuclear… leaving us with no alternative other than gas and oil!

The common denominators are “idiots” and oil.

[shitlord]

A lot of environmentalists are just degrowthers and NIMBYs. During the Biden administration multiple groups sued to block high voltage transmission lines for clean energy.

[lpcvoid]

As they should, now that we have renewables and batteries.

[Bluestrike2]

Even if modern renewables and batteries kill the need for future nuclear power plants, that doesn't excuse the consequences of decades of burning fossil fuels because environmental groups fought against nuclear power altogether.

We had better options back then, and we chose not to implement them while slowing down efforts to improve them: nuclear reactor designs could have been standardized to lower cost, even safer and more effective reactor designs could have been pursued years earlier, etc.

The costs--and opportunity costs--of inaction during that time were massive, and we're going to be paying them for generations. Renewables have a heavier lift ahead of them as a result, with less time to build out and upgrade the grid, transition to EVs, etc. The very least we can do is acknowledge the consequences.