Scott Rosenthal said:
Touched a nerve did I?... Good...
As for who is or is not an anticapitalist luddite, numerous opinion surveys in fact show strong correlation between those who profess green (not deep green, I believe we can all agree that they are a bunch of nutters, and utterly unrepresentative of any rational worldview...) positions and those who evince strong anticapitalist and antitechnological views. Yes, there are some who don't follow this sad path, but by and large they are the exception, and not the rule.
Such as what opinion surveys? Do you have any examples?
I've never seen such a result and I have quite an interest in political and opinion research. I strongly expect, for example, that what you describe as "anticapitalist", I might describe more accurately as "standard liberal anti-laissez-faire attitudes". I also expect you'd find that environmentalists as a group are more comfortable with computers than most of the population, despite being less comfortable with, say, SUVs and nuclear plants.
As for nuclear power specifically, I know from lots of firsthand experience that nervousness about or opposition to it is MAINSTREAM in North America, it's not even remotely close to being an issue that needs some special explanation of "luddism" for the environmentalist position on it. And most of the opinion results from people having a lack of perspective on how much of a threat radiation is from nuclear plants, versus other sources of radiation and other forms of pollution. Heck, when I was in high school we had a representative from CANDU (Canadian Department of Uranium) give a presentation on nuclear power, pointing out rarely-known things like how much radiation is present in the natural environment. Before the presentation the average opinion in the student body was pretty anti-nuke, afterwards even the most pro-environmentalist students basically responded that, wow, they'd never even encountered such information before.
Most people in the environmental movement, like most people in ANY political movement (including any large movements who like nuclear power), are basically ignorant of any real science behind their position on the issues.
When you get right down to it, the reason the US doesn't use much nuclear power is more due to standard right-wing attitudes, than to any activity by "greens". Very liberal countries outside the US - France, for example - often make heavy use of nuclear power. Canada's CANDU is a world leader in nuclear power, and Canada is generally more liberal and environmentally conscious than the US. What are the main differences of energy policy between these countries and the US? The US has a more privatized, decentralized energy system, lower taxes on fossil fuels, and in many ways less strict rules about pollution resulting from fossil fuels. The US also has a national energy policy focused on keeping lots of fossil fuel available. The combination of these factors actually makes nuclear plants considerably less economical in the US than they are in many other countries.
The greatest possible boon for nuclear power in the US would be to give the mainstream environmental movement exactly what it wants - taxes or limits on CO2 emissions, more stringent pollution laws with less "grandfathering" of old plants, and so on. And to give liberals what they want in terms of public utilities being responsible for power, and a national energy policy less reliant on using military power to keep a stable supply of Middle Eastern oil.