My main problem with nuclear power has always been the incalculable risk, as evidenced by the fact that no insurance company will insure it. I don’t think anyone is less emotional and more rational about potential death than they are

8 million people die every year because of air pollution, caused mainly by fossil fuels. If only the oil companies were held responsible for those deaths like nuclear power plants are held responsible for the health problems they cause, things would change.

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

Interesting. Could there be other reason for not insuring nuclear power plants than incalculable risk? Such as - it is calculable but the price is too high (for already pricy source of energy?) Are you sure non of them is insured?