[MostlyStable]

its short and mostly just a description of whats happening. Not much to comment on. Except for the last sentence that says that nuclear "can't" compete with renewables.

Firstly, it's actually competing with coal, which is what is going in instead, and secondly, any regulatory regime that slows nuclear deployment so much that you instead install coal is deeply, deeply flawed. Nuclear is orders of magnitude more safer than coal, and has been for 50+ years. They need to figure out which roadblocks are slowing it down and remove them.

Regulation is a choice. Sometimes it's a very good choice. But if your options are "highly regulated nuclear" and "coal", then you have made some poor regulatory choices.

[afiori]

I agree with your point but as feedback on phrasing saying

> Nuclear is orders of magnitude more safer than coal, and has been for 50+ years

might cause some skepticism as Chernobyl was in 1986. I am not saying that it is false, but I am saying that it will sound false

[yongjik]

Searching for "coal pollution death europe" would give:

https://www.wwf.mg/?272333/Dark%2DCloud

> It reveals that in 2013 their emissions were responsible for over 22,900 premature deaths, ...

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/air-pollut...

> Pollution from Europe’s coal plants responsible for ‘up to 34,000 deaths each year’

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abecff

> The health burden of European [coal power] emission-induced PM2.5, ..., amounts to at least 16 800 (CI95 14 800–18 700) excess deaths per year over the European domain.

Chernobyl's total death toll is estimated somewhere between thousands and tens of thousands: in other words, even assuming the worst number for Chernobyl, in every year or two, coal kills the same number of Europeans as Chernobyl ever did. The number may be as low as a few months.

[afiori]

I am not disputing this, I am just saying that leaving the argument implicit might be confusing.

[MostlyStable]

Pollution from burning coal (and other fossil fuels, but mostly coal) kills, depending on which estimate you believe, 10s of thousands, to millions of people per year, and that is completely ignoring impacts of climate change. Yes, even when you take into account accidents like Chernobyl, and even if you decide to accept the very highest of the total death estimates, it's still dramatically safer than coal.

Over-reacting to early nuclear disasters and failing to accelerate our build out and continuing with coal for the past nearly 80 years post Chernobyl is, in my opinion, one of the greatest civilizational mistakes humanity has made.

[llm_trw]

The average coal power plant kills a few dozen people a year in normal operation with first world safety standards.

It's just that these people are spread over a wide geographic area and can be blamed on things like smoking and car exhaust.