I still don't understand, this is a list of accidents so what? How many people are injured/died? How does that compare to other sources of energy, other sectors? How many of these were due to human incompetence and how many where due to natural disasters that killed more than the resulting nuclear accident? How old are all these plants? If we would iterate on the design of these reactors how safe can we get them after 1000 plants?

> And to compare them with coal plants is classical whataboutism. "They can't be bad, because I found something other that's bad as well."

I disagree, I am saying we should replace coal with something that is orders of magnitude safer. Nation who will disregard nuclear will be stuck with coal/nat gas for a very long time. For most of the world there aren't even theoretical models for getting to 100% wind/solar if stable grid is required with CURRENT demand, let alone future demand.

I don't have a source handy but I disagree we only have supply until 2080. Maybe with current known reserves and without reprocessing.

Germany won't find a story site because they don't want to find one. They are looking for something perfect, that is guaranteed to last 1000s of years. Meanwhile, waste water from mining and refining is just dumped in old quarries, lakes, the ocean. PFAS just gets dumped everywhere. All kinds of toxic waste that lasts forever, just dumped no one cares. But when its about nuclear waste suddenly everything has to be secured against the apocalypse.

Look we can argue about this forever, meanwhile China is building more plants that whole west combined and in a few decades they will be energy independent using 100% clean energy.