Sure, someone can be both concerned about climate change and oppose nuclear power. But it's a largely self-defeating stance: nuclear is the only non-intermittent geographically independent form of clean energy. Dams and geothermal are geographically constrained. Solar and wind are intermittent, as well as varying in output depending on location.
Small thing, dams are not carbon neutral. Depending on location, the plant life they inundate no longer absorbs carbon and, worse yet, the rotting plant life emits methane and other not-good gasses.
Yes, and pouring concrete also emits carbon dioxide. And building wind turbines requires fossil fuel emissions. And the truck driving solar panels out to the solar farm emits CO2, etc. But at the end of the day, the carbon intensity of dams, nuclear, wind, etc. relative to fossil fuels is near zero: https://shrinkthatfootprint.com/electricity-emissions-around...
To be clear, all thermal plants - be they nuclear, fossil fuel, biofuel, etc. - require water for cooling. But this doesn't need to be freshwater, many nuclear plants are cooled with seawater. In non-costal arid areas, nuclear plants can be cooled with sewer water: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_...
Electricity demand is concentrated in population centers, which themselves require water and produce sewage as a byproduct. Thus it's pretty rare for a place with strong electricity demand to simultaneously have a shortage of water available for cooling. In places with limited freshwater supply, this results in plants using wastewater. Again, thermal plants of all kinds need cooling. Nuclear changes nothing relative to the status quo in this regard.
There's not much trust in anyone who says nuclear is completely safe, "we fixed it now," etc. That shouldn't be the motto. But fossil fuel is already killing more people, coal puts more radioactive uranium dust into the air even, and that's before getting into climate change.
I think people who are anti-nuclear and environmentalist are wrong, but it's not an insane opinion to have. There's no fact you can point to that says nuclear is safer than renewables. I just don't see how the world is realistically going to switch to renewables. We've already seen oil companies use those as distractions from nuclear.
Nothing man-made is "completely safe". No such thing.
However, nuclear energy is the safest form of energy production we have.
By far.
And that includes Chernobyl and Fukushima.
People overestimate the danger from nuclear energy by incredible amounts.
That doesn't mean that close exposure to a running nuclear reactor won't kill you in short order. That's why we build these things with shielding. A lot of other things will kill you in short order if exposed to them: cars/trains in motion, for example.
Nuclear is also in practice significantly geographically dependent.
Cities basically won't let you put a nuclear power station within a stone's throw, never mind in their midst. Have you ever visited London? There's a wonderful modern art gallery, on the side of the Thames called Tate Modern, and it has this enormous space which is called the "Turbine Hall". Huh. Tate Modern's shell was a 300MW oil fired power station named "Bankside". They burned tonnes of oil right in the heart of London until the 1980s to make electricity. People weren't happy about it, but they designed, built, and operated the station because although any fool can see there's toxic smoke pouring out of it into your city, electricity is pretty useful.
In practice nuclear power stations get built somewhere with abundant cheap water, far from population centres yet easily connected to the grid. England has more places to put a Nuke than say, a Hydro dam, but they are not, as you've suggested, "geographically independent", unlike say solar PV which doesn't even stop you grazing animals on the land or parking vehicles or whatever else you might want to do.
What you're describing is substantially different than, say, attempting to build a dam in a flat place with no rivers.
"It can function here, but people choose not to" is a very different kind of geographic restrictions than "it is physically impossible for it to work here"
The only thing a nuclear plant - any thermal plant for that matter - requires is cooling. But that doesn't need to be freshwater. It can be seawater or waste-water, like the Palo Verde plant.
That map doesn't effectively capture the intermittency of solar energy in different climates. In Britain the country gets less than 8 hours of energy during peak winter. It also often goes with overcast skies for extended periods of time. A bigger array does not solve these extended periods of non-production.
Today, around 1/3 of homes in the Netherlands have rooftop solar, accounting for 21% of total electric energy consumption.
Compare and contrast to the stats for 2013, when solar power made up just 0.16% of overall electricity generation and a negligible 0.96% of residences were fitted with PV systems.
The UK and NL are time zone neighbours, so I'd argue solar energy / duration are close also. Apparently the sun keeps shining in winter or with overcast skies regardless.
Initially I also had my doubts, but it seems we've got solar everywhere before the nuclear power mega projects are done with construction.
Take the European Pressurised Reactor. A French 'mass production' design from 1995, constructed starting 2005 in Finland, and commissioned in 2023. France got theirs running in 2025. China managed to generate electricity from a European Pressurised Reactor just a tad earlier, back in 2018, but the stats are filled with inaccuracies.
The mass production hype has been exceptionally farcical, considering we ended up with only three units.
The thing about intermittent sources is that it's easy to use them for 30-50% of generation, but once they saturate electricity demand during peak production their ability to further curtail emissions drops significantly.
For instance the Netherlands generated 33% electricity from solar during July 2025, but in January 2026 it was only 3%: https://lowcarbonpower.org/region/Netherlands/month In practice, this means that ~70% of the daytime energy use is already generated from solar, and another 30% is wind and nuclear. Adding more solar panels will mostly provide more power during the already-saturated periods.
The Netherlands could, in theory store electricity during the summer and consume it in winter. But actually creating energy storage at that vast scale is beyond our capability, short of some technological breakthrough in energy storage.
It absolutely can be. Solar would even be harder hit in a place like Alaska, with the dual whammy of very cloudy and overcast for 9-10 months, and then so far north that the sun just barely sits on the horizon, which makes gathering sunlight very hard (very directional, 60deg angle panel, limited positioning). Works fine in summer of course, that's just a 2mo or so window.
