>>10854227Nuclear is unpopular BECAUSE it's clean and efficient.
Think about it for a moment. The communists know they can't provide a better quality of life, the 20th century proved that. So they change the goal of the game: communism's real strength is lowering quality of life, that's the new objective.
So that's why we're ignoring geo-engineering, the scientific and cost-effective solutions to climate change. Trillions are invested in flawed green energy so that baseload power (coal plants) becomes uneconomical, and heavy industry is destroyed in the West. Anything that needs serious electricity is exported to Asia: deindustrialisation is the goal.
Similarly, you can see the constant pressure to lower quality of life. Don't drive, don't fly, don't eat meat. The media constantly harangues materialism and consumerism. When we start getting serious consequences, the economic self-flagellants will crow and rally the brainwashed youth to overturn democracy, finally achieving revolution in the West.
Obviously, nuclear power is too cheap, too efficient, too effective for this to work. It would allow for heavy industry in the West, it would lower unemployment (robbing the left of their strongest allies) and it would raise quality of life. Rich people don't revolt. So obviously, the safest power source per gigawatt has to be suppressed, on grounds of danger.
