I am not against nuclear, just want to point out that while this might have been true in the past, the price decline in solar means nuclear now looses on price. (Perhaps as stable base load where hydro is not already in place...but energy storage might be cheaper than nuclear too)

>I can't stop thinking those opposing nuclear power is not serious about climate change.

They mostly are I think, they're just completely ignorant and naive and unrealistic about all the solutions. The strongly anti-nuclear people (esp. those a decade ago and longer) seem to really think that everyone's going to suddenly stop driving cars and start walking and biking everywhere.

However, that said, it's getting more and more realistic to forgo nuclear power while still reducing greenhouse gas emissions, thanks to renewables, especially solar power. PV power is getting cheaper all the time, and Germany for instance produces a large fraction of their power with it despite Germany not being an especially sunny country. So it's getting more and more realistic to oppose nuclear power while still supporting policies to reduce climate change, and not be completely naive and ignorant as in the past. The main problem with solar is storage, due to its transient generation nature.

They are ignorant, but nuclear power proponents have most done a terrible job of selling their argument. They keep selling the benefits while downplaying the safety concerns. The correct strategy is to treat the safety concerns as being of primary importance and treat the benefits as an unfortunate necessity.

It does not matter what the actual risk incidence and hazards are. You do not overcome bias by talking people into submission to the evidence. that works great in peer view and in school but it does not work in the real world because the population you need to convince does not have sufficient spare intellectual capacity to process that.

If you want to sell nuclear power you offer reactor designs that are new, you over-engineer for safety, you say you're taking profit out of the equation, you fire anyone who makes even the smallest mistake, and you drink a glass of any wastewater (or equivalent depending on reactor design).

The public believes, with some reason, that anything nuclear either explodes or contaminates things. No amount of reasoned argument is going to change this perception. The way to change it is to make the plants look different and have the operators and sponsors of the plants live next to the nuclear plant with their families. Not say that it's perfectly safe, show that it's perfectly safe.

Long time nuclear opponents advocating renewables were right in hindsight: If all the post WWII nuclear R&D resources had been spent on renewables instead of military derived reactor designs, we would have had cost effective renewables for years now.

Instead, nuclear is still not commercially competitive, having swallowed globally untold amounts of tax money away from other research.

The latest gen reactor projects are very pyrrhic victories for nonfossil energy.