[afterburner]

Are you including the effective body count due to increased greenhouse gas emissions (for coal) and cancer incidence/habitat destruction (nuclear)? Not to mention the economic damage of the incredibly expensive reactors (nuclear) and pollution (coal), which can probably be abstracted into a body count as well due to poorer health and living conditions from pollution/wasted societal resources.

[vidarh]

> cancer incidence/habitat destruction

The are both far worse for coal than for nuclear.

But no matter what you include for nuclear, you won't get the numbers very high.

> Not to mention the economic damage of the incredibly expensive reactors (nuclear)

It's not at all clear that nuclear is any more expensive than the alternatives if you accounts for the externalized costs of e.g. the huge bodycount from the alternatives.

[afterburner]

You are assuming I am comparing nuclear to coal, or coal to nuclear...

You must be reading some pretty rosy estimates on nuclear energy compared to renewables if you think the costs make nuclear look good. And by costs I include dollars (the wastage of such having an impact on all our wellbeing as well by diverting from better solutions).