But completely unsurprising. Greenpeace pivoted from an anti-military nuclear to an anti-civilian nuclear stance to try and remain relevant, they've been a negative force in the world ever since.
They've been raising awareness about AGW while actively fighting one of the best tools to mitigate it for more than 30 years.
See, for example, the UK government's otherwise incomprehensible willingness to pay extraordinary sums for new nuclear capacity such as Hinkley C[1]:
"it is difficult fully to comprehend the persistent intensity of official UK attachments to nuclear power, without also considering aims to maintain nuclear submarine capabilities". [2]
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/21/hinkley-point-c...
[2] https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=2016-...
By "military nuclear" what is meant is mostly "nuclear arsenal". Hence the peace part of Greenpeace.
But I think it's true for Russia, maintaining full nuclear cycle does help with supporting its military nuclear capabilities. Thus the substantial political support which the industry gets there. For example the floating plant [0] is based on reactors used in icebreakers, which in turn have roots in submarine reactors.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power...
We have better, anyway. The combination of wind, power, burning things that have grown in our lifetime and time-shifting power usage seems to be good enough AFAICT.
By the latter I mean that a lot of big power users don't really need to run all the time. A company like BMW needs a lot of electricity to produce a car, but the factories are built with capacity to spare (building extra capacity while building is cheaper than adding if a car sells well) and most the power-hungry bits can be shut down for a while if the power grid really needs it. Unless a car model is really, really popular and the factory runs at full capacity, but in the case competing factories don't.
There is no energy grid anywhere in the world t1hat has ever run only on intermittent power sources.
As for the hypothetical BMW factory, what are the workers meant to do while the power is low?
You have to be honest that cost of such setup would be significantly higher because you need huge amount of storage, or large overcapacity, or both.
Lastly, zero people died from radiation at Fukushima - the tsunami killed 15,000. Why is anyone surprised that a natural disaster can damage a building? Do we have tsunamis in UK and Germany?
The story is completely overblown.
Current and projected cost of storage is relatively high, the most cost efficient storage is hydro and compressed air, they are not showing any kind of fast decrease in cost.
Maybe there is potential in energy grids that span continents and have large over-capacity - then you dont need much storage.
I am assuming we are talking about imminent future, in 50 years maybe math is different, but thats too late for climate change.
Nuclear power has always been a government funded energy source so unless government policy changes and UK orders 50-100 of these power plants by 2050 then nuclear power is not going to make any difference. Convincing all governments on the planet to invest into nuclear power is extremely unlikely. Without the introduction of a CO2 tax nuclear power will always look bad vs coal and coal will always look bad vs renewables and from what I can tell the vast majority of people don't want a CO2 tax even though it would be the best solution for climate change.
"Nothing can ever happen for the first time."
This is false, and lower the credibility of the people that keep repeating this fake mantra again and again.
Official statistics says the only fatalities were from physical injuries, stuff like collapsing walls, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...
So interestingly, one of the reasons why the steam engine took off in working factories was because you didn't have to rely on the intermittent nature of water or wind power.