126

This is a broad topic, and for an overview I would suggest to look at the wikipedia article on the anti-nuclear movement. The main points are: accidents which pose a risk to humans and the environment (see Fukushima or Chernobyl). waste disposal: the problem of disposing nuclear waste long-term is still completely unsolved, and the waste poses a threat to ...


101

Burning fossil fuels has a negative impact on the environment. This impact is relatively well understood and predictable. Nuclear power may have a negative impact on the environment, both when the fuel rods and reactors reach their end of life and when accidents happen. The problems of radioactive waste disposal are not solved and accidents are ...


83

TL;DR: Many green political parties worldwide predate widespread concerns over climate change. A timeline of events is in order: 1988: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is created. 1990: IPCC releases its First Assessment Report. 1992: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is adopted. Compare this with the ...


55

I can explain why the Swedish green party Miljöpartiet is against nuclear power. They have lots of arguments against nuclear power, but those which they consider the most important are summarized on their web page about nuclear power: Nuclear power is dangerous. Fukushima 2011 is given as an example. Nuclear power causes pollution. Examples include uranium ...


51

There are two aspects to this - nuclear powered submarines can stay on station for essentially an indefinite period of time, which means that your nuclear-weapon-armed ballistic missile carrying submarines have a greater chance of being "lost" by your opposition's attack boats. But this benefit also applies to your opposition's attack submarines - ...


49

The deal was not only between the USA and Iran, as other countries and the EU were signatories: China France Germany European Union Russia United Kingdom The situation with those signatories is complicated, as neither they nor Iran have withdrawn from the treaty. Those signatories are not trading with Iran due to USA sanction regimes; the pact is formally ...


48

According to Holman Jenkins in 2016, the answer is murky, not least because environmentalists are not unified against nuclear: Honest greens have always said nuclear power is indispensable for achieving big carbon reduction. James Hansen, the former NASA scientist who has been chaining himself to fences since the first Bush administration, was in Illinois ...


46

Almost certainly didn't happen. Wikipedia makes/made the same claim about the four countries having withdrawn from the better known Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident. Both conventions were signed at about the same time (1986), in the aftermath of Chernobyl. Both Hungary's and Poland's government agency websites say they are still in the ...


43

The whole point of these "New X Deal"s is to unite the party proposing it, pick up some outside support, and put the other party in a weak position if they oppose it. If there's some kind of seam in popular support for bits of it, you want that seam to be in the other party, not in yours. For Democrats, putting nuclear power in there would not do that. ...


31

The treaty you're thinking of is the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (also known as the NPT or NNPT). The core of this treaty for non-nuclear weapon states is Article II, which says Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear ...


30

(Note: not all Green parties oppose nuclear; see the greens are no longer anti-nuclear in Finland) If we got all our energy from nuclear power, identified resources with extant widely deployed reactor types would last us five (5) years. This is unsustainable. (However, there exist technologies at various levels of readiness levels that can potentially ...


28

American media is, unsurprisingly, biased with a pro-American viewpoint. Thus, we see that Trump "withdraws" from the agreement where Iran "violates" the agreement. In fact, it is more correct to say that America violated the agreement, as the word violation suggests acting in bad faith. By every account, Iran had held to the terms of the deal in good faith ...


23

It depends on what you consider good and bad. If your only concern is greenshouse-gas emissions, then nuclear is indeed good. Yet, nuclear energy brings along problems of its own, e.g. nuclear waste, nuclear accidents, etc. These, are the main reasons why many proponents of green energy dismiss nuclear energy. If something goes wrong in a wind-park, then ...


22

Iran does have genuine reasons for developing a civilian nuclear power industry. Iran's oil production is comparable to that of Iraq or Kuwait, but Iran has a much larger population. Between declining production and increasing domestic consumption of subsidized gasoline, Iran risks becoming a petroleum importer in a few years. Nuclear power (especially ...


19

The environmental movement was initially opposed to nuclear power, partially due to it being tied to nuclear war (Chernobyl was a weapons grade Plutonium reactor), and partially due to the risks involved (this well predated Climate Change being the top concern). These fears would be exacerbated in 1979 by the Three Mile island accident, and the movie The ...


19

US nuclear-powered submarines use highly-enriched uranium (HEU) as their power source. (The UK ones also use HEU, sourced from the US, but processed locally into cores.) So, critics say/claim HEU-powered submarines are similar enough to a floating dirty bomb, which they don't want entering their waters. See for example this complaint/claim from a NZ group. ...


15

I would argue that the reason is less political and more about geography and economics. As this study shows, access to low-cost fossil fuels is in fact cheaper than nuclear. This page shows the cost of fossil fuels to be reasonable, whereas nuclear has a high capitalization that must be amortized in some fashion. Saudi Arabia, for example, has the world'...


15

The answer is simple: Green parties are similar to other political parties in that they are not entirely rational. They reflect a certain constituency's and clientele's mindset and interests. Most Green parties emerged from a confluence of social movements of the 70s: The modern peace movement, the anti-nuclear movement, feminism, and the radical left; in ...


12

I would attribute the basis to the monster movies of the 1950s and 1960s, which established an underlying "Omigawd, it's radioactive! We're all gonna DIE!" cultural meme. Combine that with the fact that neither the public in general, nor the membership of "green parties" in particular, have any great understanding of science (consider the way popular SF ...


12

Because the use of nuclear reactors on warships blows a giant hole in the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT): There is already a military reactor loophole in the NPT. Article III.1 provides that: Each non-nuclear weapon state party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and con- cluded with the International ...


11

When the Oil Crisis hit in 1973 France was heavily dependent upon foreign oil for energy production - and it was in response to that vulnerability that they made a big push towards becoming self-sufficient as regards power, and nuclear was seen as the way to do this (aka the Messmer Plan) - hence the overwhelmingly large proportion of the country's ...


10

Partial answer: It's usable as reactor fuel 20% enrichment is also referred to as "High-assay Low-Enrichment Uranium" (HALEU). It has various benefits when used as a fuel in some reactors; see the Centrus page on HALEU. Apparently, it is already in use in existing research reactors in the US, for example - after 10 tonnes of the material had been produced ...


10

The basic issue US media has with this situation is the same issue they have had a lot in the Trump era: accurately reporting what was done (in this case, the US broke its word on an international agreement) would look a lot like a partisan political attack. This would violate the principle of "balance", which by training and ideology they just cannot make ...


10

Because this is what their voters want. The main purpose of a party is to represent it's voters. The policy and the statute is subject to reflect their views, and evolve with the consciousness of citizens. Green parties being opposed to nuclear power is merely a reflection of general sentiment of their voters.


10

Are any party officials really needed to ask for their opinion? Fact is, that in all scenarios nuclear energy is dangerous in all respects, and it doesn't make a real dent in terms of preventing climate change. Going by a simulation of these complex interactions: Scenario 1: Business as usual so far on all levels: Scenario 2: Business as usual but going ...


10

In the website of the Bulgarian nuclear regulator https://www.bnra.bg/bg/international/www/bg/international/iaea/ both the "Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency" and "Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident" are listed as "ratified" and "legally binding" ...


9

The main problem is the Dimona reactor in which Israel's nuclear warheads are produced. Israel has not signed the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and does not allow inspectors in the facility. From Nuclear energy and desalination in Israel by Or Rabinowitz: This facility was never placed under IAEA safeguards or any other international ...


9

I am just adding some stuff regarding CO2 emissions. The rest is well summarized by user tim. While it is true that the process of generating electricity from uranium is more or less CO2 emission free, the mining of uranium ore is not. The emissions are minor when compared to coal based electrical energy though. But it is a fact that nuclear power (uranium ...


9

Perhaps the green parties are arguing from a financial perspective: The Nuclear industry receives far more than 60 billion per year just for power plants and equipment. $67 Billion in 2019. Its a 200 billion dollars-per-year global industy including staff and safety. i.e. Hinkley B total running costs is 3.5 times the price of the equipment cost. The ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible