Chris Martz
Why do most climate activists oppose nuclear power? I’ll tell you why.

It has nothing to do with the cost to deploy; it is actually pretty cheap without burdensome compliance regulations.
It has nothing to do with radioactive waste; that is easily compactible into steel and concrete casks, and much of it is in fact reusable.
Instead, their vitriol towards nuclear is an artifact of their Malthusian religion. They maintain that industrial processes are harming the planet and the only way to avert catastrophe is to decarbonize our economy rapidly and stop economic growth by abolishing capitalism.
Many in fact admit that is their intention. Solar and wind are their preferred energy technologies.

Why?

Because they are intermittent electricity generation sources. The activists know that neither solar nor wind can serve as the baseload to power modern civilization. It’s simply not feasible with current technologies [which is why they require fossil fuel backup when there is no sunlight reaching the panels or wind blowing to turn the turbine blades].

This means that supply must be rationed. Nuclear, on the contrary, can.
France runs 70% of their grid on it.
Fission is symbolic of an economically prosperous future.

Solar and wind are symbolic of what the degrowthers want.
It’s essentially a population control grift.

Some activist academics have gone so far as to say that the planet has too many people. But, they never take the liberty to decarbonize themselves and net zero their own existence. Oh, no.
There is just the right amount of them, but too little of us.

They don’t care about the planet; as George Carlin once said, they only care about having their own space to live. Their own little habitat. It’s narcissism guised as environmentalism.

You and I are the carbon that they want to reduce. It’s that simple.