> the evacuation was entirely based on subjective opinions and lacked scientific basis.

This is not what experts say: at the time of the nuclear accident information was scarce and volatile, and they estimated that the worst potential accident would have major effects up to Tokyo and require evacuation in a huge zone. "In 2012, ex-prime minister Naoto Kan was interviewed about the Fukushima nuclear disaster, and has said that at one point Japan faced a situation where there was a chance that people might not be able to live in the capital zone including Tokyo and would have to evacuate" (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_reaction_to_Fukushima... ). Also: "Kan commissioned a report for the worst-case scenario from the Japan Atomic Energy Commission, which confirmed his worst fears: a potential evacuation area reaching as far as 250 kilometers from the stricken power plant—a zone of exclusion that would have reached all the way to Tokyo and affected roughly 50 million people" (source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-ody... )

This major disaster did not happen thanks to sheer luck (one of the parameters was wind, which blew most radionuclides towards the ocean).

> issues with communication, hierarchy, and more

The classic "Chernobyl was only possible in vodka-drinking derelict USSR" 'explanation' is obsolete: most nations aren't as organized as Japan, and Fukushima exposed that even in such an adequate context a nuclear accident canot be avoided and, even in a low-impact form, may causes huge damage.

> The report highlights human fallibility

This is the cause of each and every industrial accident.

> and the impact of illogical fear

It seems "illogical" after the fact.

Armchair-experts always "win" every war.. but are nowhere to find when things go awry.

>> N. Kan was advocating nuclear energy

> In what way personal opinions should be relevant

This is pertinent because it shows that the Japanese Prime Minister did not use the Fukushima nuclear accident as a mean to fight against nuclear power.

> we are talking about the same person who made the disaster

According to you the Prime Minister was the culprit. Source?

>> This is highly debatable: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35521090

> Your arguments are self-contradictory. You explain how the Fukushima problem is due to nuclear power, yet argue that dam-related fatalities are not the fault of dams.

Nope. I argue that a dam is way more robust and also that it gives numerous early signs announcing a failure while a nuclear reactor can quickly transition from 'all systems OK' to 'major accident'. Read the Banqiao dam history (from its building to its demise), and imagine a nuclear reactor in such a context.

> nuclear remains safer than dams

This is highly disputed, even in Fukushima's case.
http://csrp.jp/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/2013-UNSCEAR-Repor...
https://apjjf.org/thierry-ribault/4761/article

> The numbers show that nuclear is inherently safe, making the "safety of nuclear" discussion irrelevant.

Past nuclear accidents (their effects are disputed) don't reveal the max potential damage caused by a nuclear major accident.

>> most efficient ways

> Diversification has always been the most efficient way to lower costs and improve competitiveness.

True, however renewable sources may be sufficiently diverse.

> because of ideological reasons

No. Risk (accident, proliferation, waste...), dependancy towards uranium, cost... are not 'ideological' biases but facts. The 'ideology' hinting at neglecting them suffers from an event such as Fukushima's accident.

> costs come from overregulation

Which comes from past accidents. Is, in your opinion, enhancing safety thanks to knowledge obtained thanks to accidents useless?

> low investment

Many nuclear projects (R&D, new reactors, refurbishing...) are running.

> It's not intrinsically costly.

The evolution of the production cost of various types of source is clear:
https://ourworldindata.org/images/published/Price-of-electri...

> storage, which is currently expensive and requires further investment to become affordable.

https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline

> Moreover, 90% of the solar and battery supply chain is in China

This is not intrinsic, many nations (even in Western Europe) did built such equipment and are willing and ready to resume doing so.

In most nuclearized Western nations there is no uranium to mine, and no existing industrial way to tackle this challenge. Any conflict could disrupt the uranium market.

> I fully understand your ideology

When there is no more argument you may indeed rant.