Where do you get the uranium from? It doesn't magically fall out of the sky. It comes from heavy extractive of industry.
As opposed to the Windmill Fairy?
What's the reasonable worst case scenario with a nuclear plant failing?
Using Fukushima as an example, the worst case is that fewer people died as a result of the meltdown than died from the hasty reaction of shutting down all of Japan's other nuclear plants (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/10/31/shutting-...).
What happens to the waste?
It's contained, which is a large improvement over spewing it into the atmosphere.
These clever questions you're asking have been studied extensively, and nuclear comes out far ahead of fossil fuels on every conceivable metric. You can try to make the argument that we don't need to build any more nuclear plants because wind and solar will provide everything we need in 10 years, although you'll need to explain why this is true now when people have been incorrectly claiming it for 40+ years. But if you're shutting down nuclear plants and burning more coal as a result (hello Germany), you've taken a very wrong turn.
You are experiencing bog-standard selection bias. The positive contribution is from all nuclear plants, not just Fukushima. Your point would only make sense if all nuclear plants had similar accidents.
An analogy to your argument: TWA flight 800 killed all its passengers, therefore all flights should be banned.
Edit: maybe try to learn your own internal biases, because I suspect you would make better arguments if you understood your weaknesses.
I said nothing about banning fusion power plants, so your analogy is incorrect and your cod psychology on my motivation or ‘biases’ unhelpful.
The full cost of nuclear including externalities is lower than say coal, but far higher than wind or solar or even hydro and the market has spoken as a result.
An area of Japan and an area of Ukraine are now uninhabitable for a generation or two due to previous disasters. The cost of that is very very high and more than most societies are willing to bear even if in theory the risk is low, but more importantly decommissioning costs on waste and plants are huge, so fusion is far behind.
Literally zero people died in the immediate aftermath, and in the years since one person who worked at the plant has died.
The data is clear, in terms of deaths per TWh of generated power, nuclear is the safest, cleanest form of power we have. [1]
Coal power kills between 24 and 100 people per TWh generated (100 for brown coal). Nuclear is 0.03 - between industrial solar and wind, and significantly lower than rooftop solar. It also has a lower carbon impact than both wind and solar.
Yes people were evacuated. But they'd have been evacuated anyways whatever kind of plant was there.
I wasn’t talking about deaths but about cost. The data is pretty clear on that too which is why solar and wind have risen while new fission plants decline.
As opposed to the Windmill Fairy?
What's the reasonable worst case scenario with a nuclear plant failing?
Using Fukushima as an example, the worst case is that fewer people died as a result of the meltdown than died from the hasty reaction of shutting down all of Japan's other nuclear plants (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/10/31/shutting-...).
What happens to the waste?
It's contained, which is a large improvement over spewing it into the atmosphere.
These clever questions you're asking have been studied extensively, and nuclear comes out far ahead of fossil fuels on every conceivable metric. You can try to make the argument that we don't need to build any more nuclear plants because wind and solar will provide everything we need in 10 years, although you'll need to explain why this is true now when people have been incorrectly claiming it for 40+ years. But if you're shutting down nuclear plants and burning more coal as a result (hello Germany), you've taken a very wrong turn.