❗ No Net Zero Without Nuclear ❗

🤷 Depending on who you ask, nuclear power is either humanity's best shot at a liveable planet or an expensive, dangerous distraction that we've already wasted too much time on.

Recently, the technology that environmentalists spent decades fighting is suddenly everywhere: 

☢️ Microsoft, Google, Amazon and Meta have collectively contracted for over 13 gigawatts of nuclear power.

☢️Global nuclear generation hit a record high in 2025 and is set to keep climbing. 

☢️ Investment in nuclear has risen 50% in five years and is expected to exceed $70 billion in 2025 alone.

🔄 The nuclear narrative is changing rapidly, but does the climate movement understand what that actually means?

⚛️ Few people are better placed to answer that than Dr Tim Gregory. He works on the frontline of the British nuclear industry as nuclear chemist at Sellafield and is speaker, presenter and author of Going Nuclear: How the Atom Will Save the World.

🔬 Tim He doesn't just argue for nuclear, he lives it. He’s taking head on the gap between science and public perception. In this episode of Uncomfortable Climate, I'll be putting hard questions to him:

➡️ Is the anti-nuclear movement directly responsible for locking in decades of fossil fuels?

➡️ What does the science actually say: on safety, cost, and waste - and why does public perception lag so far behind? 

➡️ Can nuclear scale fast enough to matter for net zero, or have we already lost too much time?

😬 This one won't be comfortable, and that is precisely the point.

💬 Add your questions in the comments and I'll make sure they make it into the conversation.

🗓️ You  join us: Monday, May 25, 5PM BST and 6PM CEST on LinkedIn Live.

Follow the conversation