[natmaka]

The tsunami was the secondary cause, and believing that no-one could predict such a tsunami is misleading.

Proof: another nuclear plant was less distant from the tsunami and survived, because someone (Y. Hirai) foresaw it and could impose his views: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant#20...

The hard truth is: even a predictable cause can trigger a disaster. And many aren't predictable.

Fukushima is by many criteria a "lucky" case, as many reactors were properly shutdown when the wave came, operators reacted globally adequately...

The question isn't "is a disaster possible?" but "when, and of which magnitude?".

This patently insufficient ability to foresee also sheds a light towards the "we know that dangerous nuclear waste will not be a problem for anyone during the next 100000 years or so".

Renewables can do the trick without all those threats.

[JohnHaugeland]

Your stories notwithstanding, every renewable deployment in history has failed to reach zero carbon.

 

> The question isn't "is a disaster possible?" but "when, and of which magnitude?".

Yeah. And solar out-kills nuclear by a factor of nearly 20.

Your problem is that you're trying to consider nuclear in isolation, with no null hypothesis.

Every single replacement causes more death and more radioactive waste, no exceptions, even when you fold in the worst nuclear disasters in history.

.

> Fukushima is by many criteria a "lucky" case

This is an absurd and incorrect viewpoint. Please do not hold yourself forwards as knowledgeable in these matters.

The Fukushima design was well known to be flawed, and the United States had been suing Japan to shut it down for ten years before this happened.

The seawall did not meet Japan's national standards.

You might as well call Union Carbide lucky. Go be an apologist on someone else's time.

[natmaka]

> every renewable deployment in history has failed to reach zero carbon.

No energy production mean reached zero carbon. Nuclear is far from this goal and cannot attain it on any financially realistic way.

Even France, which produces most of its electricity using nuclear reactors since the 90's, couldn't. Proof (red surfaces represent fossil fuels used for electricity production in France): https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/editi...

In France the 'nuclear success story' led to a state law (2015-992, from 2015, the "loi relative à la transition énergétique pour la croissance verte") stating that the part of nuke-produced electricity must fall to less than 50% in 2025, from 72% then, and that renewable sources must replace it.

The fraction of consumed energy produced by renewables is booming, even in good old Europe. Proof: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/nrg_ind_ured/...

Overall there is a working and more and more adopted way to build future energy systems... and another one...: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/nuclear-renewables-electr...

> solar out-kills nuclear

This is false, as any serious meta-study shows: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

Moreover those victims are past ones, and a new major nuclear disaster may cause many victims while solar-panels induced major disasters aren't even possible.