The risk increases non linear with the amount of plants and with the amount of nuclear waste you have. For the waste we have no solution that works, except for storage, which has tons of risk. For the plants itself it is just a matter of possibility when an terrible accident happens. So simply put, there are around 17 meteors every year that hit ground and can cause a disaster, when they hit a nuclear plant of just some storage for waste, not taking tons of other risks like humans, earthquake, war and alike into account. Eventually, a nuclear plant is no more than gambling for your future, because it is guaranteed that an accident will happen, just not when. This does not even take all the other problems into account like the cost. Nuclear powers is unbelievable expensive, compared to solar or wind. They just is cheap on the paper, because you do not care about all the hidden cost.

> For the waste we have no solution that works, except for storage, which has tons of risk

And instead, you burn coal and Gaz which creates even more waste which we can't even store. The difference is that the nuclear waste are localised near you, while the CO2 is spread globally and mostly affect warmer country we don't care about.

> So simply put, there are around 17 meteors every year that hit ground and can cause a disaster

The disaster is made worse because of nuclear infrastructure. But I don't see the point. It is already a disaster to begin with. Look at Fukushima, the real disaster was the earthquake and tsunami that killed and destroyed lots of homes. The incident in the nuclear plant in the area did make it slightly worse, but not by much. Even though the media seem to blame the whole thing on the power plant.

Building new nuclear plants is no solution, because it takes much more time than building Wind or Solar power plants. Apart of that "I" do nothing, my government does, my only choice is to elect the correct party, which I did and plenty of Germans did as well, which is why the Green party is now the second strongest. When you give a shit about your children, then you are right, in any other case you are totally wrong. The problem is the same with smoking, you do not see anybody dying directly of smoking, therefore this is no problem? However, for things where it helps you argumentation you let this kind of deaths count, like for global warming or* coal pollution. Nuclear waste will be there for the next 100,000 years and our children need to care about it, that should be better than having wind or solar plants?

Paralysis goes way back before fFukushima.

While distance can make them safer, it also makes them less efficient.

There are no standard designs for nuclear reactors yet, although this is slowly changing.

Nuclear reactors have always been run at great subsidy.

Only two MSRs have ever been built, over half a century ago and have a huge list of disadvantages. Not saying that can't be overcome, but it takes time, money, and will. There is some movement in this area.

With solar and wind making such great strides, advantages of nuclear are decreasing.

It's not that straightforward unfortunately. Let's leave the whole waste deposal issue aside for now, it seems to be still the case that the free market considers nuclear power plants too risky. What I mean by that is that no operator can currently afford to get private insurance for their plants, which is why plants are insured publically.

Markets are not omniscient of course, and they might be ineffective, but it's something to think about when discussing nuclear energy.

> the free market considers nuclear power plants too risky

the free market is made up of people who primarily watch sensational evening news and follow clickbait social media. the actual statistics are still well on the side of nuclear in terms of safety and externalities (as far as i understand)

Nonsense. The "actual statistics" from the perspective of insurance companies are that if anything bad happens, your insurance company is going bankrupt. It doesn't matter how unlikely that's been calculated to be in some spreadsheet model, no smart insurance company will take that bet.

CO2 tax is still not included into the energy price. If it's done, nuclear will suddenly become much more viable.

My point had nothing to do with energy prices and CO2 tax would not change the fundamental calculus faced by insurance companies.

The free market could easily build nuclear power plants. The government regulatory hurdles are what keep it from being profitable.

Even with less regulation, the problem is that it takes a huge amount of capital, and you need a decade or more to get return on your investment. So it is really not that interesting for a private investor.

For real. If the airline industry had behaved like the nuclear industry we wouldn't be flying planes today

Also, in typical governmental fashion (see: rocket building before SpaceX) power plants were optimized for (size???) instead of safety, cost and time to build.

Things you don't have to optimize for: efficiency

Make it fast to build and in self-contained modules (economies of scale). Make it failsafe (even if it costs efficiency)

There is not a single one of these "small modular self contained" reactors commerically available or producing power for the grid.

These are called "blueprint reactors", because designing a nuclear reactor is easy, but building one is hard.

> There is not a single one of these "small modular self contained" reactors commerically available

They exist in nuclear subs. There needs to be investment and research to make them commercially viable.

> There needs to be investment and research to make them commercially viable.

That means that it’s not a near-term solution, and also may turn out to not be viable at all.