And yet, most reports place the lives lost due to the Fukishima disaster between 0-200 people - which zero being the most common estimate. Ironically, the decision to close nuclear plants following the Fukishima meltdown likely lead to more deaths than the meltdown itself: https://www.economist.com/asia/2019/11/07/was-shutting-japan...

I don't have an idealistic view of the world. Rather the opposite. Nuclear power can provide for part of the growing energy needs of the ever-growing human population, while petrol supplies will start declining at some point in this century for geological reasons. It might be hard to swallow, but a few nuclear accidents are worth mitigating the worst consequences of climate change and energy peak. Without adequate access to energy, humans in multi-million cities will not be able to survive.

EROI on Solar and Wind power is good, but obviously almost 100% of the energy invested is from fossil fuels. We still spend more energy building solar panels than we receive from it. Which, in a way, is a good sign (it means the solar industry is growing). But no storage technology has been deployed at scale yet (which would reduce the EROI even more). Will it scale enough before a potential energy peak? Will nuclear?

Nuclear power plants can be used as weapons. The explosion of Chernobyl could have taken out half of Europe with radioactivity had it not been dealt with.

If we elect another Kim jong/Stalin, or a neighbouring country does, they could blow up their own reactors to achieve destructive means. Solar and wind don't have that problem. The nuclear accidents are bad enough. Imagine the fallout from a plant in mexico takes out half of Texas, is that an acceptable risk in the pursuit of cheap electricity? Do you want to place the future of international political stability on the ability to regulate and police an industry? Both america and japan, two trustworthy and competent nations have had problems with nukes. Trading one bad scenario for another is not going to help.

Space based solar is a safer bet than nukes.

> Japan never had Tsunamis, it was a safe bet to assume something like that would never happen.

I assume you're being sarcastic there, but I wanted to add a salient point.

The Fukushima pump/generator problem should have been spotted long beforehand during site audits. I guarantee that any experienced data center audit team would have flagged that in about an hour.

So for anybody who invokes "act of god", etc. - let me tell you - Fukushima was preventable for less than one $5 grand site audit report.

Yes, I'm disgusted.

These kind of projects exist at the intersection of so many different disciplines. And most of those disciplines are very narrow. Something that is obvious to one person will not enter into the thinking of another.