We're not talking about the perfect vs. the good here. We're talking about a power source (nuclear) that can result in virtually unlimited harm to human life in cases of serious failure vs. power sources that, while not as well-developed, are much lower-risk long-term.
Nuclear is still better than coal and gas. At this rate we will never limit temperature below 2.1C pre-industrial, so anything that gets helps getting rid of fossil fuels ASAP is a good deal.
Also, even worst-case scenario like Chernobyl ultimately wasn't that bad. Several natural disasters in the 2000's have killed way more than it did.
> Also, even worst-case scenario like Chernobyl ultimately wasn't that bad.
The problem with statements like this is that we don't actually know what a worst case scenario truly looks like. The day before Chernobyl, the worst-cast scenario, by definition, not as bad as Chernobyl. Similarly, the engineers who built Fukishima were aware of tsunamis and earthquakes and built the plant to withstand what was considered the worst case scenario at the time. Then an even worse case scenario happened.
It's fairly simple to find an upper bound for the damage a nuclear incident can cause. Take all the radioactive material in the reactor and put it in the most dangerous location, like the air or an underground aquifer. I don't understand why you think that the worst case scenario somehow got worse after Chernobyl.
Wasn’t that bad. Wow. Maybe in a Excel spreadsheet kind of way it wasn’t that bad but what a horrific experience for those involved - humans, animals and the environment.
Ah yes, unlimited harm to human life in cases of failure, versus the unlimited harm to human life and planet earth that comes guaranteed everyday with the use of coal and gas.
Don't put up a straw man. Folks who question the safety of nuclear are not advocating for coal and gas, they're advocating for increased investment in myriad other clean energy sources. Suggesting that anyone who questions nuclear is advocating for coal and gas is a bad faith argument.
There are no other clean technologies that can deliver power at scale on their own.
Solar and wind and hydro takes up immense amounts of what should be undisturbed natural environment. Solar and wind needs storage, in the form of hydro or batteries.
Nuclear is a proven, safe tech that pumps out steady, squeaky-clean energy. People imagine that it’s dangerous because of high-profile accidents but don’t see the daily small catastrophes caused by every other tech.
Nuclear wins, hands down. It’s just such a no-brainer. It’s like we’re back in the days of Edison and Tesla and AC vs DC.
