Why The Pro-Nuclear Movement Is Winning

ER Editor: To appreciate how much of an about-face this is in France, for example, which has always relied heavily on nuclear power, see this piece from exactly three years ago, titled France to CLOSE 14 nuclear reactors by 2035: Macron. And now this by RT from this week: Macron goes nuclear to PROTECT France’s energy independence in green future.


Why The Pro-Nuclear Movement Is Winning

Viewed as politically radioactive just a decade ago, after the Fukushima accident, nuclear power is today coming back in a big way.

“Abandoning Nuclear Power Would Be Europe’s Biggest Climate Mistake,” screams Bloomberg today. “If Biden is serious about the climate crisis, he should put nuclear on the table,” opined a contributor to The Los Angeles Times on Wednesday. “The Dream Is Possible,” tweeted French President Emmanuel Macron, earlier this month.

Viewed as politically radioactive just a decade ago, after the Fukushima accident, nuclear power is today coming back in a big way. (ER: Fukushima was rumoured to be a false flag event. Was this the reason why, to give bad press to nuclear power?) The pro-nuclear movement is growing like gangbusters in even hostile nations like Belgium, Germany, and Australia. The world’s largest economies including Japan, Britain, and France are returning to nuclear energy. And it is becoming increasingly clear to liberals and conservatives alike that only nuclear can achieve global prosperity and environmental sustainability.

Naturally, anti-nuclear activists are alarmed by all of this. This morning I received a menacing letter from an anti-nuclear university professor in Britain demanding that I tell him “why you maintain your own ostensibly ‘green’ advocacy of nuclear power, at a time when this case is more difficult to sustain.”

The politically-motivated magazine Boston Review asked “Is Nuclear Power Our Best Bet Against Climate Change” that went out of its way to smear me as promoting “climate denial” for promoting our largest source of zero-emissions energy.

The main reason for the success of the pro-nuclear movement is the failure of renewables and the global energy crisis. The share of global energy from fossil fuels is unchanged since 1980 because solar and wind do not replace fossil fuel power plants, and, in fact, depend upon them. Only baseload hydro-electric and nuclear power plants can replace fossil fuels.

And over-investment in unreliable renewables and underinvestment in nuclear, hydro-electricity, and natural gas, over the last decade, directly resulted in today’s energy shortages, skyrocketing electricity prices, and a return to coal around the world.

But there is another reason for the pro-nuclear movement’s success that may come as a surprise. For decades, nuclear energy supporters have promoted the idea that nuclear energy is a compliment to intermittent solar and wind energies. Pro-nuclear people have argued that we should emphasize the risk of climate apocalypse for why nations should build nuclear plants.

And nuclear boosters have argued that, when educating policymakers, journalists, and the public about the technology, we should emphasize the deficiencies of existing nuclear plants, and promote next generation technologies.

As an outsider to the nuclear science and technical community, these arguments made increasingly little sense to me, as time passed. Natural gas and hydroelectric dams are compliments to intermittent solar and wind, because their output can be easily and efficiency turned up or down, whereas nuclear plants are most efficiently run at full-power.

Climate change is real but climate alarmism is dishonest and alienates many people who support nuclear energy for other reasons. And futuristic nuclear plants are a long ways off, which means it’s misleading at best, and self-destructive at worst, to hype nuclear technologies that only exist on paper.

The most important thing is to tell the truth about nuclear, I argued to friends and colleagues, starting in 2016, and build an honest pro-nuclear movement worldwide around the truth. Anti-nuclear people have been lying about the technology for decades. For pro-nuclear people to have any credibility, we must tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, about nuclear power.

And we must build our movement on the basis of the truth, and push back against those who exaggerate climate change, who suck up to the renewable energy industry like battered wives, and who sell fairy tales about magical nuclear reactors.

More than anything else, my colleagues at EP and I argued, we must humanize nuclear. How? By being like Marie Curie. She was the first woman to win a Nobel Prize and the first person, and only woman, to win two Nobel Prizes, one for physics, in 1903, and the other for chemistry. But more important than any of her many recognitions, Marie Curie was the first atomic humanist, someone who puts the power of the atom in service of the the world.

When World War I broke out, she went to the French government with a plan: she would create and oversee 200 hundred mobile medical units — which would become known as “petites Curies” — to use x-rays to diagnose injuries and radium to sterilize infected tissue.

Not everybody agreed, and Environmental Progress and I paid a heavy price for telling the whole truth about nuclear. Many pro-nuclear people found that they were more welcomed by polite society, dominated as it is by Malthusian environmentalists and renewable energy advocates, by claiming to be pro-renewables and to favor only “advanced designs,” not “legacy nuclear plants.”

Some ostensibly pro-nuclear people ridiculed us for organizing pro-nuclear demonstrations in places like Munich, Germany, where the vast majority of the public was against us. And others even went so far as to speak out against building new nuclear plants, with the idea that doing so would win over climate alarmists (spoiler alert: it didn’t).

See more here: substack.com

Header image: Martin-Schlecht-AdobeStock




The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)


Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.


Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.


Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

1 Comment on Why The Pro-Nuclear Movement Is Winning

  1. I read about this 40 years ago in a book titled “The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear”. There it tells us how the only fuels that are viable long term are coal and nuclear. Coal will last another 100 years and nuclear 200. Unfortunately it’s been left too late. Now the only alternatives are mass genocide either through jabs, war or starvation or a Mad Max type scenario. Prepare yourselves guys.

Comments are closed.