[Aloha]

We have enough land in most part of the world that if we lost, say, 10,000 - 100,000 acres a decade due to meltdown, we'd still be pretty okay (and I dont think we'd loose that much, given Generation II reactors that are in service, have a failure record which is something like 1 every 100 hour-years of actual operation) - that said the risk of nuclear meltdown is actually really really really low - even risks of moderate leaks are really low. The larger issue is long term storage of the wastes of the plants, which adds a huge cost to the energy generated.

I'd also consider hat with generation II reactors most of the failures were systems failures, not failures of the reactor itself - we know how to engineer around systems failures.

[intertextuality]

> We have enough land in most part of the world that if we lost, say, 10,000 - 100,000 acres a decade due to meltdown, we'd still be pretty okay

This is completely untenable. Perhaps you're okay with it if it occurs far from where you live, thus not affecting you, but it sure does affect other people. And the surrounding areas. It's not comparable at all with the other forms of energy production in that list aside from fossil fuels which are an even worse danger.

> we know how to engineer around systems failures.

We don't really know how to fix human-related errors, such as hubris, pride, laziness, shame, and so on. So many things are completely obvious in hindsight, but we continue to make similar mistakes now.

[keanzu]

If we are only allocating 10,000 acres a decade for land lost to power generation then solar is a non-starter. Solar Star is a 579-megawatt (MWAC) photovoltaic power station spread over 3,200 acres. For comparison Fukushima Daini was delivering 4400MW.

[mimixco]

On average, we have a serious meltdown event every 20 years with consequences far beyond anything that could happen from renewables.