I’ve noticed that pro-nuclear people tend to be more data driven and anti-nuclear tend to be more tribal:
Standard anti nuclear arguments from the left:
- diverting resources from wind and solar is folly
- corrupt energy corporations will always run unsafe plants
- nuclear proliferation
- US regulations make the technology fundamentally unprofitable (despite many counter-examples in other countries)
Anti nuclear arguments from the right:
- Coal = jobs
- Scientists can’t be trusted to make nuclear work.
- government regulations ruined it, and are unchangable
Data driven arguments:
- meltdowns are bad, but infrequent. Even if safety never improves, coal plants dump more radiation per kwh.
- waiting the last 30-40 years to decarbonize electricity generation was much more harmful to the environment than nuclear plants would have been (even with multiple meltdowns, and it wouldn’t have cost much to avoid that).
- france and china have successful nuclear industries, and france did it with now-obsolete technology.
I haven’t seen much correlation between being on the left or right and being pro- or anti-nuclear.
I have noticed that pro-nuclear people tend to have a more balanced take on covid (by “balanced”, I mean somewhere between “masks are a hoax” and “full-on panic”)
oddly, here in Australia, for much of the union movement (== left) coal = jobs == vote for rightists, in some areas.
overall, i do tend to agree with the economists soft-left who point out with the cost of capital close to 0, we can do all the economically less "efficient" stuff in wind, solar, batteries, because we can afford to, and actually need to, under the new MMT/Keynesian pump-priming. The same investment in nuclear wouldn't be net beneficial in the same way because less immediacy in the spend, and so less effective economic levers for the right-now economic problem: out the other side, we'd have an amazing modern supply network built out of a mixture of sources, and maybe thats ok?
I see huge correlations being leftist in general, and anti nuclear. There is a small c conservative movement who believe in the integrity of the land and oppose nuclear because its just not how fox-hunting people of tory bent, envisage the land being run. But, they are a tiny minority. Most of the active anti nuclear people are either declared centre-left or lefterward of center-left (IMHO)
I can't speak to the covid question. I haven't explored it.
Standard anti nuclear arguments from the left:
- diverting resources from wind and solar is folly
- corrupt energy corporations will always run unsafe plants
- nuclear proliferation
- US regulations make the technology fundamentally unprofitable (despite many counter-examples in other countries)
Anti nuclear arguments from the right:
- Coal = jobs
- Scientists can’t be trusted to make nuclear work.
- government regulations ruined it, and are unchangable
Data driven arguments:
- meltdowns are bad, but infrequent. Even if safety never improves, coal plants dump more radiation per kwh.
- waiting the last 30-40 years to decarbonize electricity generation was much more harmful to the environment than nuclear plants would have been (even with multiple meltdowns, and it wouldn’t have cost much to avoid that).
- france and china have successful nuclear industries, and france did it with now-obsolete technology.
I haven’t seen much correlation between being on the left or right and being pro- or anti-nuclear.
I have noticed that pro-nuclear people tend to have a more balanced take on covid (by “balanced”, I mean somewhere between “masks are a hoax” and “full-on panic”)