It's a good argument.

Australia absolutely would have egregious chains of human failure and bad planning.

You've only got to look at the present state of this country to see that that is how we, evidently, prefer to do things.

Isn't human failure and bad planning an even bigger concern for the handling of the 1000000x larger amount of coal that nuclear could replace?

No, not really. If a coal plant is designed or run badly, it might burn down, and that's it. If a nuclear plant is designed or run badly, whole countries might be unlivable for centuries. The risks are not the same.

> No, not really. If a coal plant is designed or run badly, it might burn down, and that's it.

No, coal plants have spent-fuel disposal problems due to "human error"/poor management too. This one cost over $1b to clean up and required them to scrape off the topsoil and rendered the area essentially uninhabitable, just like fukushima. TVA ended up having to buy out the inhabitants and move them elsewhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly...

And the fun part is: that shit is actually radioactive too. Coal plants put out as much radioactive waste as nuclear plants do... but they put it straight into the air, and then put a bunch more into spent-fuel pools besides.

That's only if you look at the worst case of individual incidents. You also need to consider the rate of incidents (due to the hugely greater consumption of coal plants for example) and other failure modes like long-term mishandling of fuel and waste.