[pfdietz]

At the # of deaths produced by nuclear in normal operation, or by wind or solar, the "deaths" are dominated by the statistical lives due to the cost of energy itself.

The NRC uses a value of $9M for the value of a statistical life. That is, it is worth spending $9M if that will save one expected life.

Nuclear, solar and wind have deaths/energy somewhere in the ballpark of 1 life per 10^10 kWh. So, at $9M/life this cost is roughly $0.001/kWh. This is very small, which says that even minor differences in the cost of energy from various sources will be more important than the direct number of lives lost.

(This would not be true of fossil fuels, though.)

TLDR: it's more important to reduce the cost of energy from these non-fossil sources, and to choose the sources with lowest cost, than it is to make them safer. For nuclear, inherent safety could be useful if it would enable cost to be reduced, but not because nuclear needs to be safer.