> Once again: nuclear is either the safest or one of the safest forms of energy we have. Hydro is less safe, Wind is less safe (thought not by much). Solar is about the same.

This "assessment" is base upon a single image which is being handed up and down the nuclear astro-turf, and it's ignorant and disrespectful.
There are still victims of Chernobyl out there, and there will be for generations.

You can give them some money to append for the use of this meme: https://www.chernobyl-international.com/

And not only there: https://culturacolectiva.com/en/history/mexico-radioactive-m...

https://www.bfs.de/EN/topics/ion/environment/foodstuffs/mush...

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1007843

> And the other thing that people don't understand is the energy density of nuclear.

Sure they do. They don't care because you know what's even better? The sun in the sky, for example...

> Nobody is saying that the accidents are not bad. However, they are not actually that bad.

We currently have a country full of reactors which are beyond the time they were supposed to run. Failures, accidents, shutdowns, global warming, etc. are happening to them, but the country doesn't have a diversified energy generation infrastructure. They'll keep it running. Accidents will keep on happening.

Meanwhile, the world keeps on turning. Global conflicts are coming nearer. Mad dictators waging wars, drones, hackers, machine learning, are happening. Why would any sane person even think about keeping or even BUILDING new targets in a densely populated area??

> As evidence, I present you Ukraine: the country that had the absolutely worst nuclear accident in the history of the world. Unstable reactor, no containment, authoritarian government with horrible crisis management. And yet, they kept their nuclear reactors. And not just that, they are among the 22 countries that have pledged to triple nuclear output by 2050.

They didn't have a choice back then. Now they have other things to care about. Like invading troops hiding their tanks and ammunition WITHIN their nuclear power plants! How the hell is this supposed to be an argument FOR nuclear?!?

Btw: I doubt they'll have even a fraction of the required money to build a single reactor in the future once the war is over. Renewables are incoming.

And yeah...gota love that "pledge": https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/12/11/nuclear-energy-cop28-el...

Nuclear has peaked, and even China invests much more in renewables than it said it would invest into nuclear. (The rest has other use: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/19/major-expansion-chi...) Time's up. Taxpayers will not be ready to waste money on those nonsense projects if the alternatives are cheaper and faster to build.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/21/wind-solar-in-china-gen...

https://twitter.com/yo_ean/status/1718633487454904718

https://www.ft.com/content/2bccd67f-a3c6-48d1-baa5-8ef9d54cd...

> The countries with the most experience with nuclear accidents are aware that these are tradeoffs, and have come to the conclusion that the tradeoffs favor nuclear.

No they didn't. They greenwash regulations, rip off taxpayers, renationalize companies responsible for construction and maintenance because they can't survive on their own. It's a complete failure and the time is up.

https://about.bnef.com/blog/dead-horse-also-ran-or-unicorn-h...

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/World-Rep...

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/nuclears-share-world...