> You were arguing about the fact that the evacuation is not opinion-based, and also that evacuate Tokyo was "reasonable".

No. I was arguing about it being adequate. A decision is always opinion-based. Science explains how the universe works, it explains but does not deliver decisions. During the accident experts described its worst potentiel effects and therefore the potential largest zone to evacuate and the evacuated zone was far (FAR!) smaller.

> I do not doubt that someone also theorized the explosion of the solar system at that time. But I don't see why that would be relevant to prove anything.

You invoke 'science' and only use rhetorical 'hyperbole'. Your point could be strong if you could exhibit (source!) that the worse potential effects of the accident described by the experts while it was unfolding were strictly impossible. Good luck!

> Nuclear power plants are built to be intrensically safe, it's not luck.

Yes, they are, however nothing is perfect (they also are built to not trigger any major accident...).

> > Officially much more deaths (2200+), as already proved, and long-term effects are disputed. Plus huge damage.

> No you didn't prove anything lol, actually we are proving that you are saying things that are not true.

There is no argument here.

> False, again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure?useskin=vector

Only hydro-electric dams (better design and supervision) are pertinent. Considering all dams types is equivalent to pretending that victims of the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki are 'victims of nuclear'.

> For nuclear energy, rare failures such as reactor meltdowns can result in high fatalities and severe environmental damage, which fosters public fear and resistance despite the low probability of such events.

Indeed, most of 'risk aversion' here lies in the 'low probability'. Nuclear reactors provide only about 2.2% of final energy, many think that their past mishaps don't really entice us into building many more reactors.

> The EU report also take in consideration everything

All hypothesis are highly debatable.

Another point is ethical: to which extent do those who prefer nuclear can coerce those who refuse the associated risk to accept it? Play with your stuff at will, but it should never be a threat for me.

> a hydrogen plant of a few billion that you use only in peaks raises costs even further.

The solution is know: use adequate membranes (PEM) tolerating intermittency, have only a few centralized plants and let the grid convey to them overproduction from the whole continent (reducing intermittency), have a battery buffer...

> Nuclear power's inefficiency is tied hand-in-hand with low investments.

This is only part of the problem. Interest rate sure bump the total cost up because nuclear project are nearly always (way) late, but the root cause are the reasons for them to lag on.

> Building more reactors in parallel can only make production more efficient.

If, and only if, the building process is sufficiently mastered.
Check science: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014...

> In china they are doing excellently.

No. During the past 10 years they deployed on average 3.3 reactors/years, and nuclear now produces about 5% of their gridpower (renewables: 31%). Those are meek results. The best ones compared to the nuclear quagmire everywhere else, granted, nothing else.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/elec-mix-bar?country=~CHN

>> This is not intrinsic to renewables, we can decide to enhance our autonomy, then do so.

> "Then do so" its not something that we can do in some decades.

One may prefer an impossible task: creating uranium reserves.

> If you really care about decarbonizing

... I do, and have to prefer the best tools available: renewables.

> All CANDU reactor (~31) can use Thorium as fuel.

But a single one does so. Please name one.

India was a leader and ran projects in order to try to do so. It now massively invests in order to obtain a prototype on a different architecture (a sodium-cooled fast breeder): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_Fast_Breeder_Reactor

Hopes and dreams don't produce gridpower, sorry.