Nuclear vs Fossil Safety

You are implicitly comparing nuclear to the status quo.I'm curious, how much have you read about the fossil fuel industry? Near misses or not, the actual death rate per unit of energy produced is far higher for fossil fuels than nuclear [1].[1] https://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/coal-and-gas-are-far-more-...

There are certainly high risks with nuclear power, but accidents with a large loss of life also happen with other energy production methods. Also, a big accident like Chernobyl sounds horrible, but people forget that burning coal produces a lot of pollution (including radiation!) that over time kills much more people.To get a perspective of how nuclear accidents compare with those of other energy production methods, have a look at: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En

The total number of people who have died in all nuclear radiation incidents (excluding the use of atomic weapons) is perhaps 20,000, with all but 100 coming from a single incident (Chernobyl). That number is less than the number of people who will have died from pollution from coal power points, alone, last year, let alone the effects of coal mining.Nuclear power has a big image problem: people overestimate the expected risk of very rare but high damage events and horribly underestimate commo

Ultimately, I think one fundamental "problem" with nuclear power is the worst case scenario at the plant level.Big picture wise, I'm sure it is statistically be safer than fossil fuels (counting the problems of fossil fuel pollution and the environmental problems / lives lost due to the extraction process). But looking at the power plant itself, and focusing on the worst case, the only other form of power I can think of with the potential to create a Chernobyl type disaste

Nuclear power isn't flawless, but the fossil alternatives can kill people every single day.Fukushima killed somewhere on the order of 10 people? That's a level 7 event on an ancient plant, a wind turbine falling over could easily kill that many people if it landed on a bus. This time it can be different, but your black swan argument isn't much different from our fear of flying.

The worst nuclear accidents that could possibly happen have already happened. We couldn't have a worse nuclear power disaster than Lake Karachay even if we tried on purpose. And yet the sum damage they caused is a negligible blip compared to how many people die due to the use of fossil fuels on any given month of any given year.The environmental impact of nuclear power vs. fossil fuels or even renewables is just a negligible number no matter how you spin it.I too am confused like the

You've exhaustively listed every nuclear accident recorded and said, "That's a melt-down every 24 years" as if that were something terrible. The numbers do not support you. Nuclear has less deaths per kilowatt hour produced than coal by orders of magnitude, and even kills less people than hydroelectric, solar, or wind power.Even if we did consider deaths from catastrophic events somehow "worse" than the occasional, not-so-newsworthy death, look at the Banqiao dam

In terms of fatalities, we're overly scared of nuclear incidents, and not scared enough of coal power and brownouts.https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energyYou're absolutely correct when you say that less regulated nuclear would have caused more incidents. You may also be correct when you say the risks aren't properly calculated at present. The thing is,

>...I was a supporter of Nuclear, though Fukushima taught me a very important lesson.You missed the important lessons from Fukishima.A major power plant suffered about the worst possible catastrophe that it could have through a combination of incompetence by the plant and its regulators. For all that, the highest estimates of death due to the evacuation are less than the deaths that come from a day of burning coal (when the coal plants don't have an accident). What about other p

"This is typical of people who aren’t educated about nuclear power."This is typical of people who are aware of Chernobyl and Fukushima. There have not been utility-scale many nuclear power plants in the history of the world. The fact that two out of ~600 failed catastrophically makes natural gas, wind and solar look really safe by comparison (especially since they are all cheaper and do not produce radioactive waste that lasts forever). How many catastrophic energy plant failures ca