> This is utterly absurd. This conclusion was reached way too late, the report states (same page) that in order to produce this conclusion the experts "finished their work in three days". In your opinion during a major nuclear accident everyone around the plant will quietly sit and wait 3 days? Is it a joke?

Well, you were talking about the scientific report, this is the conclusion of the scientific report. Beside that, there is only politics and baseless decisions.

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

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.

> I already answered: the worst was avoided thanks to sheer luck (some reactors were shut down, some emergency cooling was against all odds possible, winds favorably blew a fair part of the dangerous stuff away...).

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

> 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.

I pointed out how the evacuation was avoidable, and that it was based on people's fear, ideology, and inefficiency. You tried to disprove this, but with false claims.

> This is relative.

No its not relative, I linked beautiful charts before:

(page 171 Chapter 3.5)
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC1...

> I answered: this is only valid if retaining the Banqiao dam case while considering that a nuclear reactor exposed to the same challenges wouldn't have caused more damage.

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

> How many victims would some renewable equipment (a field of wind turbines or solar panels) destroyed by a natural disaster cause?

By ChatGPT:

Risk aversion in the context of nuclear and renewable energy refers to the tendency of individuals and societies to prefer options that minimize potential risks, even if those risks are statistically low but have high potential consequences.

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. Conversely, renewable energy sources like wind and solar experience common but low-fatality failures, leading to greater public acceptance.

This discrepancy highlights a psychological phenomenon where people perceive nuclear energy as more dangerous than renewables, despite statistics showing nuclear energy has lower overall mortality rates compared to fossil fuels. Public perception often emphasizes catastrophic potential over statistical reality, leading to disproportionate fear and risk aversion.

> The real amount of damage on health and biotopes is disputed, moreover a single major accident may bump the figures up (Russian-roulette style).

The EU report also take in consideration everything and uses the upper bound, still is safer.

> One of the trick is to use the continental grid which is needed even with the "100% nuclear" scenario in order to optimize, reduce the probability of failure, quickly restart after a local failure... Another is to produce green hydrogen for the backup. Result: less and less overproduction.

Right here you show that you do not understand what "overproduction costs" mean and their impact. More specifically, when you state:

" Another is to produce green hydrogen for the backup. Result: less and less overproduction."

That's exactly where you're wrong, because a hydrogen plant of a few billion that you use only in peaks raises costs even further. A hydrogen power plant is designed and built to produce h24, not a few hours a day.

> It would be dishonest if other recent or ongoing project in the US was more successful. Which one is?

I linked in the previous comment to an article that explains everything. And I repeat:

If you want a comparison between the two techs, you should take into account in number of investments, subsidies, general hype, ongoing projects. Nuclear power's inefficiency is tied hand-in-hand with low investments. Building more reactors in parallel can only make production more efficient. In china they are doing excellently.

Rather than taking the data as tautologies true only to themselves, it's more honest to understand the causes.

> 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.

If you really care about decarbonizing, accept the risk of that option, and the devastating consequences.

Honestly, I have no intention of taking that risk without diversifying.

> Please name a satisfying ready-to-deploy industrial nuclear reactor not needing uranium. There is none.

Deforst already replied, but also...

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

Another false statement.