If you compare it to transportation it is a bit like flying: its the safest way and it has many other upsides, but when it goes wrong it's usually catastrophic. With nuclear power even more so. When a nuclear accident happens a large area can be rendered uninhabitable for a period longer than the written history of the world. And it is a question of "when", not one of "if". Mistakes, boeing-like profit-maximizing strategies, terrorism, war. A heavy explosive on a nuclear power plant effectively creates a dirty bomb.
I think these arguments shouldn't be wiped under the rug.
> If you compare it to transportation it is a bit like flying: its the safest way and it has many other upsides, but when it goes wrong it's usually catastrophic. With nuclear power even more so.
But flying is still the safest way to travel, despite a few tragic accidents. This logic doesn't make any sense.
> When a nuclear accident happens a large area can be rendered uninhabitable for a period longer than the written history of the world.
Chernobyl exclusion zone is roughly 50x50km and life is actually flourishing in there. You can see it as a tiny natural reserve which are numerous on earth and are generally seen as a good thing.
> but when it goes wrong it's usually catastrophic.
That depends on the type since not all nuclear power plants are the same design. Here in Canada the CANDU style is very safe in design and uses natural uranium fuel not plutonium. or even thorium.
That's a good analogy. If there is a problem with nuclear it is a BIG THING(tm) that makes the news and gets people scared. Just like a plain crash. But those events are extremely rare. Meanwhile coal/cars get to slowly rack up many more kills and the general public doesn't care.
It's not only the dam (which was helpful for keeping the power plant cooled down) that was destroyed by the russians. There is also evidence that they planted explosive devices in the power plant. The whole power plant is taken as a hostage.
The huge difference is the lasting time. Few days or a week the water has gone and you can start with repairs/rebuilding. But after a nuclear disaster all is polluted for foreseeable future and not usable even if all infrastructure and buildings are intact and look safe.
Which is not true, if you look into for example Three Miles Island reactor meltdown, where from outside point of view, there is no difference and only 600 meters exclusion zone from the reactor.
Furthermore nuclear disasters killed dozens of people, while water related disasters killed thousands of people. Another reason to ban dams.
They usually don't start inhabited, but then the people building and working at it want to live closer, which pulls in the support roles of stores, which bring more people, etc etc etc.
If you build somthing in the middle of nowhere, and employ people there, the somthing will create a local population.
There are not that many big enough inhabited places left in Europe. And if you build them in Siberia, you're back to square one - dependency on the current tyrant in charge.
I love that France uses the same strategy for Nuclear power as I did with SimCity back as a 12 year old. Look at where the Chooz power station is for example. If their reactors had a melt down it wouldn't be France (for the most part) that suffered.
To be fair, it also isn't only France that benefits from those reactors. Energy prices in Germany would be even worse without nuclear power plants right next to the border.
