"climate activists" is not a uniform group. They've got a common goal and many conflicting opinions on the way to get there.

I think what they mean is "climate activist" is often code for people with de-growth and anti-human leanings.

I wouldn't even say a common goal. There's plenty of opinions on what the ideal Earth's climate would be like. Some people strive for what they view as "natural", vs other people who aim to reduce natural disasters, and yet even more who just think we should be reducing our impact in general.

Technically they are the reason why we don’t have small nuclear reactors.

No Chernobyl is the reason why we don't have nuclear reactors. either Tokio tsunami disaster or the 600 nukes after Hiroshima should prove that mankind can't be trusted with this technology imho. there has to be a better way.

That's what reactionaries have used in their continuing war to deligitimize everyone and everything left of center. But nobody has demonstrated a reliably cost-effective way to run nuclear power plants, and renewables are the future.

> But nobody has demonstrated a reliably cost-effective way to run nuclear power plants,

Half of Europe disagrees with you

They run plants, but are they reliably cost-effective?