Unfortunately this is an unpopular opinion and the other comments in the thread prove the average person thinks a nuclear power plant produces deadly products. It is literally thousands of times better for the environment than coal and gas plants. Replacing all coal and gas plants with nuclear energy would have an immediate positive impact on the environment. We also don't need to keep them forever. Eventually they'd be replaced with renewables.

Kurzgesagt video

There are plenty of environmentalists with binary thought patterns. If they can’t have the perfect system now, they’d rather let it all burn.

I'm not sure if that's an unpopular opinion so much as a completely incorrect one.

The simple truth is that nuclear is fucking expensive and takes a long time to build.

Renewables and storage are much cheaper and take way less time to start producing energy.

Given this, why would you be in favor of nuclear? Please don't try and tell me about base load (not needed), SMRs (even more expensive) or fusion (not going to happen in our lifetimes)

Logical fallacy: “you can’t claim to support $GENERAL_AREA and be anti-$MY_SPECIFIC_THING at the same time “? I’m sure there’s a name for that type of fallacy

New Zealand says you can.

mortality rate in deaths per thousand terawatt hour

if you disagree with OP, do some research and understand that you have been propogandized

This opinion is true, unpopular and truly unpolular.

Bro this is "Unpopular Opinion" not "Unpopular Opinion and also pretend it's 1979"

Nicely done OP. This is the best post I've seen on this community on lemmy.

Also amusing how many ignorant and uneducated people are calling your take/nuclear energy "stupid" simply because they don't understand it.

"Nuclear = bad" is about as far as their level of thinking goes..

It's not that this is an unpopular opinion, but rather that it's a dumb opinion. You're defining things one way and someone else can define them a different way. You can both define what an environmentalist is differently and that will affect the result of your question. If you're insisting that you own the definition of an "environmentalist" then you're being dumb.

In fact, I agree with the unstated premise of your statement. I think the risks of nuclear waste and a nuclear meltdown are much less than the risks of global warming and therefore nuclear power is good for the environment. However it is also a perfectly valid opinion that we should just reduce our energy usage and reduce global warming in that manner. I think it's unrealistic, but it's possible if we had the desire to do that as a collective. It is a valid opinion to be on that side of the fence. I think it's the less pragmatic approach, but I've known many people who are hippy environmentalists and it's still a valid position.

Environmental and Health Consequences of Uranium Mining

Tailing deposits can cause landslides, air contamination, and wildlife exposure. Uranium tailings contain small particles that are picked up and transported by the wind. The radioactive particulates in the air can be concentrated enough to cause health issues including lung cancer and kidney disease. [6] These particles also contaminate soil and water. Furthermore, growing piles of mining debris become unstable and can result in fatal landslides, such as the 1966 landslide of Aberfan, which resulted in the death of 144 people. [7] Tailing ponds pose serious hazards to the environment as well through leaks, in which underground water becomes contaminated with heavy metals. [5] This can lead to the pollution of lakes and rivers. Local ecosystems, too, are harmed and destroyed by waste piles and ponds. Rain can interact with tailings and introduce sulfuric acid in aquatic ecosystems, similar to in-situ leaching. Wildlife exposure can also occur directly through interaction with tailing ponds. In particular, waterfowl often land and use tailing ponds, resulting in dire consequences. In 2008, 1600 ducks flew into a tailing pond and died in Alberta, Canada. [8] Evidently, the repercussions of uranium mining are far-reaching. Certain groups of people, however, are at greater risk of exposure to associated hazards.

The United States has a history of environmental inequity in which people of color and low-income communities are disproportionately subjected to environmental risks and consequent health hazards. Uranium mining is no different. Navajo Nation land, for example, is littered with tailing piles, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency has mapped 521 abandoned uranium mines on the reservation. [5,9] In this regard, uranium mining serves as an avenue for continued environmental racism, and the issue demands close examination and public awareness.

Source: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2021/ph241/radzyminski2/

You can claim anything you want.

Also, nuclear power has a huge environmental impact, it just offsets that impact by generating a fuckton of electricity.

In an idea world, we would look to make existing devices more efficient, and use them more responsibly rather than just generate more power to offset those losses.

I don't know enough about the technology to have strong opinions on this. I was opposed to nuclear because I thought, what would we do with all the nuclear waste?

And then somebody pointed out to me that apparently all the nuclear waste product in the world could fit into the area the size of one football field. Okay, I thought, that doesn't seem too hard to keep contained.

But then I got to thinking about it and that can't possibly make any sense. It's not just the spent nuclear material, it's miles of radioactive plumbing, tons of hardware, sheet metal, asbestos (still?), etc., all irradiated, all toxic to life. So now I'm on the fence again.