Or this will massively backfire and we’ll roll back to dirty power.
I don’t understand the antinuclear orthodoxy. Just when I thought the Baby Boomer/GenX cultural dividend couldn’t throw another turd in the punch bowl, we get dated ideology around nuclear power threatening to throw back decarbonisation by at least a generation.
By opposing nuclear one votes for more solar and wind, which come with fossil fuel support these days.
Your argument is a common misconception which is doing a lot of real harm to our world - while the perception is that nuclear is not safe and expensive to clean up, the reality is that fossil fuels are even less safe and even more expensive to clean up - I mean, we can't really figure out a reasonable way to clean up the greenhouse gas effects of historical fossil plants.
Like, I'm not saying that nuclear is free from side-effects, but the point is that burning fossil fuels for electricity is so extremely dirty in their normal operation that they overshadow any and all of the nuclear risks. If the expected result is that the gap will be filled with coal, then reducing nuclear power is both increasing direct risks to local people and also harming the environment; it's literally all drawbacks with no reasonable benefit.
Diablo Canyon began construction in 1968. The oldest baby boomer would have been 22. Seems reasonable to conclude that the decision to build the plant predates them.
EDIT: Confused by the downvote—does someone disagree on the timeline?
"The initial objective of the movement was nuclear disarmament, though since the late 1960s opposition has included the use of nuclear power. Many anti-nuclear groups oppose both nuclear power and nuclear weapons. The formation of green parties in the 1970s and 1980s was often a direct result of anti-nuclear politics."
Confused—isn’t that what I said?
I am agreeing with you.
I just wanted to provide some factual reference to support your point further. I did not down vote you nor do I know why you're being down voted.