Those odds are why not a single insurance company will insure a nuclear reactor for more than 0.3% the cost of a nuclear disaster.
Speaking of fallacies, your argument squarely falls under the false dilemma fallacy. Nuclear is not the only form of green energy. In fact it is by far the most expensive one as well as the only one that imparts a small chance of catastrophe.
It isnt needed to provide reliable power either. Wind, solar, pumped storage, batteries and demand shaping can, together, do it cheaper:
That would be progress, but I don't think we'll get there until the new reactors have a proven operational safety record, and enough are built to retire the old reactors.
It's kind of fair enough to be afraid with a chances of meltdown projected at 1/3704 reactor years:
https://lemielleux.com/what-are-the-chances-of-a-nuclear-pow...
Those odds are why not a single insurance company will insure a nuclear reactor for more than 0.3% the cost of a nuclear disaster.
Speaking of fallacies, your argument squarely falls under the false dilemma fallacy. Nuclear is not the only form of green energy. In fact it is by far the most expensive one as well as the only one that imparts a small chance of catastrophe.
It isnt needed to provide reliable power either. Wind, solar, pumped storage, batteries and demand shaping can, together, do it cheaper:
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/3539703-no-mi...
https://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/anu-finds-530000-potent...