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.

To me, given the facts of the matter, and an agreement that we need to replace fossil fuels, and certainly given the promise of gen4 reactors and thorium etc, it strikes me as irrational to not support nuclear.

Here is one good reason: Renewables cost 2-4x less than nuclear. For the same amount of money nuclear costs, you could build a coal plant and spend the remainder on CO2 abatement and still end up with less emissions. Thats crazy

Renewables are fantastic, but they are not viable everywhere - they require specific geography, and take up lots of it, the energy produced is also intermittent. Nuclear can help in both these cases. We need all the help we can get to get rid of fossil fuels.

A good description of our options: theness.com/neurologicablog/… Renewables will not be enough.

Here is the one on nuclear, on the benefits and the myths. theness.com/neurologicablog/… With the numbers you are referring to @ChristinGorman.