Nuclear has the fewest deaths per kWh, period. It's really simple. Now, the cost of bringing new ones online is prohibitive, but shutting down existing ones was really dumb.
I thought one of the major pro-nuclear power points was that old reactor designs were flawed and new designs address the issues. Isn't that point consistent with shutting down existing reactors?
No. Considering Chernobyl on its own, treating all radiation exposure cases which are above the statically insignificant cancer rate threshold as deaths, and coal is still more dangerous per kWh. [Source](http://www.the9billion.com/2011/03/24/death-rate-from-nuclea...).
After the accident, Chernobyl continued to provide power to Ukraine, up until it's last reactor was shutdown in 2000.
Deaths is just one measurement. Certainly making a sizable geo area uninhabitable is another. What about cancer is things go sideways? These are both legit insurance risks.
I'm not trying to take an anti nuke stand, just pointing out deaths isn't the whole of the risk.
It should be made clear that Hydroelectric has made an order of magnitude more land uninhabitable for human habitation than has nuclear.
Coal has made _three_ orders of magnitude more land uninhabitable for human habitation than has nuclear.
And whereas fish may thrive behind a dam, nothing humans can eat will grow in a coal strip mine, ash flow, or other coal-related topography change. Whereas in nuclear exclusion zones, wildlife flourishes.
But first, I agree there are always trade offs. We have alao been horribly slow in finding better energy.
As for hydro + coal and uninhabitable land. I think it depends on what you define as inhabitable in the first place. Much of it is done in obscure (?) areas that few care about. Of course, this contributes to out of sight out of mind. None the less, this should be considered.
On the other hand, nukes are closer to population, as well as near water. And, as mentioned, for these more people are more aware of them. You can also thank Hollywood for the fear(s).