Of course not. But it's fun watching them have a tantrum when they run out of lies and I've learnt a lot of cool new things from looking up the lies.
It also helps distribute reality in contrast to the usual talking points. Most people don't know that nuclear is very limited in scale and actually and quite poor from a land use and energy perspective if it were to be expanded, or that the overwhelming majority of radiation comes from sourcing fuel.
I've seen a few bystanders go 'oh shit, you only get 100-500mW per kg of mining?' Or 'wait, none of the breeders have actually done the thing?'
For example, a recent report by researchers from the Earth System Research Laboratory published in Nature Climate Change found that a UHVDC transmission line in the US could cut emissions by as much as 80% by harnessing Wyoming’s abundant wind power potential and transporting the electricity to California.
There are probably places where a NPP is the best and cheapest choice to reduce emissions and worth the downsides, but not many and forcing them into places with excellent renewable resources is idiotic.
Unless and until the budget and plans for around 5TW net of renewables is allocated, then starting any new nuclear is just a way of delaying the death of fossil fuels.
