Given that we seem to have a nuclear accident every 10 years, which was always supposedly impossible to happen, it seems like we still haven't figured out all the edge cases. Combine that with that currently only ~500 reactors exist world wide, it paints a pretty bleak image.

We could have a nuclear accident every year and it still wouldn't equal the damage we are doing burning fossil fuels.

But as airplane crashes became rarer the more we flew, so will nuclear accidents the more we build and use nuclear power plants. The ones we have are a very old and early technologuy.

Why set the baseline at an accident a year when we have renewables?

The French famously had some negative learning by doing in their nuclear build out.

> The French nuclear case illustrates the perils of the assumption of robust learning effects resulting in lowered costs over time in the scale-up of large-scale, complex new energy supply technologies. The uncertainties in anticipated learning effects of new technologies might be much larger that often assumed, including also cases of “negative learning” in which specific costs increase rather than decrease with accumulated experience.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014...