[jeltz]

What terrible local harmful effects? Only Chernobyl had any and they were very modest. Compare that to the hydroelectric plants. There we can talk real incidents with harmful local effects. If people actually feared incidents they would campaign against hydroelectric power. And the last such incident was last year in Ukraine. Also just building a hydro plant can ruin the local ecosystem even if there is no incident.

Fro the record I am pro-hydroelectric, pro-nuclear and pro-wind (I am a bit more skeptical towards solar but that is probably just me being from Sweden where solar isn't really an option). None of these are perfect but nuclear is by far the safest. The issues with nuclear do not relate to safety.

[kalaksi]

Are you saying Fukushima had none or less than modest harmful effects? I don't know what the parent meant, but the whole Fukushima disaster management and clean up will take decades and people had to leave their homes.

To add, I agree about your point about hydro in general. It's a complicated comparison, though.

[ZeroGravitas]

Nuclear, per TwH, is basically tied with solar and wind if you use decade old data.

Why do you think it's "by far the safest"?

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy