Completely agree regarding the real cost of fossil fuels being wrongly distributed

But surely the solution can’t be to repeat the same mistake for nuclear power?

The point is that nuclear, disasters included, kill fewer people than other energy sources. Nobody is arguing we shouldn't manage nuclear waste. But we should be better informed regarding risk: Radiation vs air pollution - the former is not necessarily worse than the latter

I understand why there are good reasons to prefer nuclear power to fossil fuel-based power. I think nuclear power is too dangerous to be a reasonable replacement. This is more related to the risk of catastrophic failures than the waste problem.

Even the catastrophic failures are "over-hyped" though. Fukushima killed nobody. Even Chernobyl only killed 42 at the event itself. Oil related disasters, hydro power disasters (damns bursting) have killed far more people.

You’re still comparing it to fossil fuel, and it seems to be a case of risks with different impacts and probabilities. The numbers for Chernobyl and Fukushima are debatable, the risk of entire areas becoming depopulated and uninhabitable is pretty much exclusive to nuclear power

And again: Show me the insurance company willing to insure the risk of failure and it might change my mind

There are functioning nuclear plants around, so presumably they exist already. Even if they didn't, our urgent need for a stable fossil fuel replacement should cause governments to provide whatever insurance is needed. Even "old" nuclear tech is better than oil/gas. We need this.

I don’t think you have addressed my point. You think the risk is acceptable, I don’t think it is. I’d much rather rely on renewable energy sources.

I find the risk acceptable given that the nuclear track record is by far the best there is. As I said, even disasters included, nuclear has proven to be by far the safest energy source. Even the worst disasters have had far fewer fatalities than comparable ones in other sectors.