Since the damage caused by severe nuclear accidents is essentially permanent, we cannot recover from them. So in the long run, we cannot afford even an accident per century, and thus, cannot afford nuclear power.
Also building enough nuclear to replace fossils would take too long anyway, it's not even an option.
> we cannot afford even an accident per century, and thus, cannot afford nuclear power.
This statement has no basis. We've had multiple awful nuclear accidents and the world keeps turning. We are headed towards a much worse scenario of climate change if we don't effectively decarbonize.
You are aware that there are places on earth with hundreds of thousands of inhabitants that have natural radiation dose rates from the geology that are well beyond the dose rates in almost all of the Chernobyl and Fukushima exclusion zones?
> Also building enough nuclear to replace fossils would take too long anyway, it's not even an option.
That's a thing anti-nuclear institutions have been saying for sure but it doesn't hold even a little water. France, for example, decarbonized almost all of its electricity with nuclear in 15 years. When you take a look at achieved decarbonization rates per capita, nuclear is at the top.
Today, we've seen reactors of the Hualong One, ABWRs, VVERs, and ARP-1400 designs built in wholly reasonable times.
And for deep decarbonization, we plan to use factory/shipyard production techniques to serially produce thousands of standardized low-carbon power plants even faster.
> This statement has no basis. We've had multiple awful nuclear accidents and the world keeps turning.
You hadn't forgotten I was writing about severe accidents within half a sentence, hadn't you?
> We are headed towards a much worse scenario of climate change if we don't effectively decarbonize.
I'm quite aware of that. And if I considered stopgap nuclear realistically possible, maybe I'd support it.
> That's a thing anti-nuclear institutions have been saying for sure but it doesn't hold even a little water. France, for example, decarbonized almost all of its electricity with nuclear in 15 years.
Building nuclear is not even the hard part. Deciding to do so is. Changing public opinion to favour nuclear won't happen in time so there's no point. The decision to decarbonize using renewables has been made, there's actually no need to even discuss it further.
> When you take a look at achieved decarbonization rates per capita, nuclear is at the top.
The available technology and political climate has changed since then.
Also building enough nuclear to replace fossils would take too long anyway, it's not even an option.