[pfdietz]

No, what renewable proponents do is point out nuclear's egregious demonstated economic flaws. This is not a case of hypothetical problems, it's a case of actual repeated failure.

[troupo]

> is point out nuclear's egregious demonstated economic flaws

No, they don't. They point at an industry which was for decades was vilified, ignored and obstructed, and say "see, this is hard, costly, and nearly impossible"

[ben_w]

The industry was for decades vilified and obstructed, but not ignored, because of the nature of the failure modes.

Mean cost vs. worst-case cost.

The mean cost of cleaning up nuclear reactors is tiny.

Eyeballing this graph: https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy I think we've had around 100 PWh total generated by nuclear reactors over history?

There was only one Chernobyl ($340 billion inflation-adjusted), only one Three Mile Island ($2 billion adjusted), and only one Fukushima (probably around $200 billion adjusted).

If so, those accidents cost $542bn/100 PWh = 0.5¢/kWh, which is a trivial excess on even cheap (5¢/kWh) electricity: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=%24542bn%2F100+PWh+in+u...

Unfortunately, two of those three demonstrate how expensive these can be when they go wrong, and that number is sufficient to just bankrupt quite a lot of countries — for example, Ukraine, which is where the Chernobyl reactor is, has a nominal GDP less than the cost of the Chernobyl cleanup: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...