> The failure was humans

Isn't it always true, for such matters?

As we cannot avoid committing errors it seems better to prefer a way without any risk of major accident (very dangerous radioactive things, difficult to cleanup, travelling long-distance thanks to wind, rain...). No wonder renewable sources quickly gain traction.

Characterizing the failure of politicians as a failure of nuclear power is the error in logic I am talking about.

Refusing to understand that everyone (politician or not) can fail and that if we now can replace something dangerous in case of failure (nuclear) by something new which isn't (renewables), we should do so... is the error in logic I am talking about.

You're essentially arguing that kitchen knives should be banned because a small handful of psychos will murder someone with them.

That isn't how this works.

No, because we have ne replacement for kitchen knives.

We have a replacement for nuclear: renewables.

Sincerely, please stop talking nonsense.

Renewables can be a complement to other power sources, but to even suggest they can be a "replacement" for nuclear power indicates either naivety or ignorance.

Quantitatively this replacement is already done (renewables produce way more than nuclear) and is running (nuclear produces less and less), right now, nearly everywhere (explore using 'Change country or region'): https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa...

You cannot separate the human equation from the technology.

As I said: "The big problem with nuclear is not technological, it’s guaranteeing that whoever is responsible for it will be competent, capable and solvent for hundreds of years."

> should not be falsely characterized as a failure of the nuclear industry and technology. The failure was humans

Humans working in the nuclear industry are "the" nuclear industry. By definition all economical sectors are arranged around human workers. Remove each human and the industry will lose its reason to exist.