There's no argument for the safety of nuclear to be had. With an unacceptable failure rate for existing plants, very costly new "safe" designs and lower and lower cost for reneweables, nuclear is quickly becoming obsolete.
It shocks me that so many (loud) proponents of nuclear power plants are still around - especially on HN. I wish you all would have lived in Europe at the time of Chernobyl.
Yet all data available on long term safety of energy production contradicts vehemently your point of view. Nuclear is by far safer than everything else, even when we include Chernobyl. Look at stats.
"Electricity produced from natural gas has the lowest risk of the 11 technologies (five
conventional, six non-conventional) It is a factor of about two lower than the next highest,
nuclear power Third is a non-conventional system, ocean thermal, which can convert the
temperature differences of ocean layers into electricity. Most other non-conventional systems
have far higher risk. However, the highest of all are coal and oil, with risk about 400 times
that of natural gas."
> How can unconventional technologies like wind or solar thermal (the "power tower" concept)have substantial public risk? The answer is simple. The production of the metals needed in many unconventional technologies requires that coal is burned
I get the feeling that this study from the 70s doesn't have all the facts that are relevant today.
It shocks me that so many (loud) proponents of nuclear power plants are still around - especially on HN. I wish you all would have lived in Europe at the time of Chernobyl.