I don't see a SINGLE strong point a fission power: It's not sustainable, unsafe during operation (Three Mile Island, Tschernobyl and Fukushima just to name a few incidents), not economical, all the real cost has to be cross-financed by future generations (longterm waste storage, fission plants).
Three Mile Island didn't cause a single death from radiation. Fukushima was a tsunami. The evacuation caused more problems than radiation. The deaths were from the tsunami itself. Chernobyl was an actual disaster, caused by the incompetence of the Soviets. No one still does it that way.
You sure have a way of glossing over even the MAJOR disasters. So if there are no dead people or any contributing factors all is fine and well....
Chernobyl was not fine and well, but is not relevant to how things are done today. There are risks with all forms of energy production, even solar and wind. Oil and gas are worse, especially oil. Wind is worse than nuclear (by a little) and nuclear is worse than solar by that same amount. (see below
www.statista.com/statistics/4...
You have to click to see the labels. I forgot coal... it's by far the worst, much worse even than oil.
We're getting a bit lost. No argument there, even if I have some doubt about the numbers it just confirms what I thought anyway. Except I'd NEVER label nuclear as 'renewable' as long it is not fusion.
And I also DO doubt the low death value of nuclear in particular. Eventually we're all gonna die. If people have been exposed to nuclear radiation just a small number is going to die 'instantly'. Most will develop and suffer (more or less severe) symptoms later on and maybe die prematurely.
I wouldn't call it renewable, either, though I would call it clean and very low carbon. The making of solar panels is a toxic process, too... nothing is perfect. People living close to NPPs get more radiation from the occasional X-ray at the doctor. But it's not zero.