![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
I think this matter boils down to the following: Nuclear is better than fossil fuels (by a significant margin) but the spin up time and investment is significant, too significant for many. Such little investment has been made in the last 10 or so years that investing now when the world is on the precipice of being able (though clearly, not very willing) to use wholly renewable sources seems like a better investment, even with the various pitfalls of each respective source. Energy storage has come a long way and with significant leaps every few years, it seems that energy storage + renewables is the way forward but it’s sad to see the missed nuclear opportunity. Like so many other promising and environmentally friendly(er) ideas, it has unfortunately been passed over when the time was right and will not be utilised sufficiently.
I wholeheartedly agree with the end, I am sometimes at odds with the means but it can’t be denied that these activists have some of the biggest balls on the planet and I have nothing but respect for them. The message is clear and consistent, garnering huge publicity for the cause is good. I know some people don’t like it but you try getting a multi trillion pound industry to cease causing irreparable harm and you probably wouldn’t make your local paper.
What should be remembered is that it shouldn’t take this type of activism, but what is left when voices are ignored?