I don't understand nations being anti-nuclear. Also, why would you take down nuclear without having a good substitute?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schr%C3%B6der#Relation...
>In his first term, Schröder's government decided to phase out nuclear power
>As Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder was a strong advocate of the Nord Stream pipeline project, which now supplies Russian gas directly to Germany
>In 2016, Schröder switched to become manager of Nord Stream 2, an expansion of the original pipeline in which Gazprom is sole shareholder.[92]
>In 2017, Russia nominated Schröder to also serve as an independent director of the board of its biggest oil producer Rosneft.
https://www.businessinsider.com/google-job-hires-raise-conce...
They've caused countries to go to war, killed millions, and are still mostly exempt from paying for any externalities from their product that have been known for a century. Killing nuclear is a walk in the park.
2. Minimize or outright deny all the positives.
3. Rinse and repeat for 40 years or so.
Not that different from anti-vax.
Germany has coal, it help to preserve workplaces and one has not todo/think much....climate is not so important there.
Unless we speak molten salt i dont understand people whp would build new 'classical' reactors I dont