Disclaimer: I am not really pro- or con- nuclear energy but try to keep an open mind.

How does what you are saying not apply to any other technology? Cars are “save” but kill more people than all nuclear power plants and accidents combined. Still we say to ourselves we can deal with the risk, which is obviously the case for lot’s of cases but might not be in some exceptions.

I think your reaction seems a little bit too emotional to an interesting and seemingly informative (haven’t fact checked his claims) personal perspective. The problem with discussions about nuclear energy is that there is a strong dogma towards openly thinking about the costs/risk/benefits in the political sphere. In Germany postponing our nuclear exit could buy us some time to get coal offline earlier and provide some stability to the grid. Ironically, the green party would never consider such a move due to ideological (and historical) reasons.

You're right. It fully applies to cars, as well. That's why we have those "more bikes" discussions here every now and then.

But that's no reason not to point out the obvious flaws in the comment I replied to.

And re: emotionality: you can wish it away, but it is real. Nuclear fans always act as if they only had to show this one scientific study to citizens, and everyone would immediately fall in line. That's hilarious.

Nuclear is done. It may be irrational, but the nuclear community has richly earned that. A little bit of humility and risk-weighing instead of grandiose claims of "perfect safety" would have helped.

But these lies of "perfect safety" were useful back then. They were a shortcut. A cheat. They could get their reactors much quicker if they made false claims.

Now they get the long-term results to their short-term thinking.

Yeah, you have point. I am certainly not in favor of large energy companies stealing their way around paying for the long-term containment of spent fuel rods for example. People should be held accountable for the damage they do and the waste that they cause. Offloading of negative externalities should be reduced as much as possible. For example, meaningful taxation of carbon emissions or the set up of a nuclear waste recycling and emergency fund where required contributions are determined by external auditors.

However, I am still a staunch defender of differentiated learning from the past and rational planning of the future. Given the information we have right now, nuclear might actually be an important (probably temporary) piece of a rational plan for a good future. Moving forward means setting the stage and right incentives for people to learn from mistakes, improve and grow.

>All the time nuclear power fans tell us that "this time we've learned and current design are safe".

This is a strawman argument. No one is claiming that old reactors are getting safer as we come up with better designs. None of the newer designs that people are claiming are safer have had issues. Fukushima was literally constructed before Chernobyl.