Some environmentalists contend that building nuclear power plants
is useful for curbing global heating.
I think they have been taken in.
The article does not make it clear whether they are disputing about
existing nuclear reactors or building new one. But that distinction
is crucial.
A nuclear reactor takes many years to build and is very expensive. If
the aim is to curb global heating, that is an ineffective method.
A nuclear reactor is also vulnerable in wartime. It is, in effect, a
preexploded nuclear bomb, as regards fallout. Installing one more is
making extra vulnerability. At the end of its life, it will require
expensive and slow decommissioning.
However, for an existing reactor, the price of construction has
already been paid, the construction time has already elapsed, the
fallout is already there, and the cost of decommissioning is already
going to have to be paid. If you can ensure that the reactor is
maintained so that it won't fail, maybe it is better to keep it running.
The US has a history of letting flaws and damage slide.