[maximente]

this may sound controversial but does it matter?

status quo is that potable water, etc. are going to become issues of certainty by 2050. that's likely to affect hundreds of millions-billions of people (10x-100x NYC metro area)

that there may be a nuclear accident has to be weighed alongside the fact that there is certain catastrophe ahead, not on its own.

[java-man]

I agree, this has to be weighed alongside with other factors.

One big difference is that other factors are gradual, and will come with characteristic times of decades, so we will have (some) time to adjust. A nuclear accident will be immediate, on the time scale of hours.

I think we should keep in mind that nuclear power came about from the military need, so the desire to keep these plants operating might also come from the same source.

On top of that, I personally think there is absolutely no excuse not to develop solar+battery solutions. Should we decide to put as much money as we did in nuclear into solar, and cover let's say Arizona in solar panels, we could shut down all the nuclear power plants and export excess electricity to Canada. This should be a national priority.

[elproxy]

There's a lot of irrational talk on nuclear (which one could even be tempted to suspect was the result of astro-turfing campaigns by oil companies), I find this is a pretty decent starting point to question mainstream opinions and beliefs: https://jancovici.com/en/energy-transition/nuclear/discussin... Also, regarding accidents, it is not solely a property of nuclear power, see for instance the Banqiao dam catastrophe.