Whatever the circumstances of these accidents, human nature and unexpected events allowed them to occur. Just like every accident, you can say after the fact they could have been avoided. However it is impossible to revert the consequences of a core meltdown at human time scale.
I am not anti-nuclear at all. But I certainly wonder what kind of organization is required to operate it safely.
3 meltdowns in the past 60 years with minimal loss of life (even including Chernobyl, an outlier for so many reasons), is a massively safer alternative than the status quo.
Also, solar causes less deaths, according to your counting method.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...
Analogy doesn’t work, it’s deaths per TWhour that matter.
1. Almost ALL of that is due to Chernobyl, which has to be recognized as an outlier for multiple reasons. Both in that it should never have happened, and that had they a containment shield it wouldn’t have been any worse than 3MI or Fukushima.
2. Both wind and solar have a lot of industrial and resource extraction costs & pollution that are not being counted here.
3. Land use and environmental impact are a far worse story for wind and solar.
2. Yeah, and nuclear plants have a lot of costs which are not accounted, like the already mentioned unaffordable insurance costs that are passed on to the taxpayer in the event of an incident.
3. Land radiation and environmental impact are a far worse story for nuclear in case of an accident.
Edit: to be more clear, my long term earth vision is: everything runs using electricity. No coal, no other fossils are burned. Electricity is mostly generated using wind, water, solar.