There's also the issue of force majeure - war, terrorism, natural disasters, and so on. Increase the number of these and not only can you not really maintain the same level of diligence, but you also increase the odds of them ending up in an unfortunate location or event.

There's also the issue of the uranium. Breeder reactors can help increase efficiency, but they bump up all the complexities/risks greatly. Relatively affordable uranium is a limited resource. We have vast quantities of it in the ocean, but it's not really feasible to extract. It's at something like 3.3 parts per billion by mass. So you'd need to filter a billion kg of ocean water to get 3.3kg of uranium. Outside of cost/complexity, you also run into ecological issues at that scale.

Considering that 1 Chernobyl scale accident per year would kill fewer people than global coal power does, I personally would be for it.

It was a tremendous effort and sacrifice paid so that half of Europe wasnt poisoned by that 1 Chernobyl.

Given the scale of people killed by coal every year, I feel relatively confident that had that effort not been undertaken, it would still be true.

And of course that's ignoring the fact that I also feel relatively confident that a Chernobyl scale accident every year is in no way likely, even if the entire world was 100% on nuclear

I don't think the scale of coal is 200m+ people a year. That's taking artistic liberties or is too hyperbolic to entertain.

>I also feel relatively confident that a Chernobyl scale accident every year is in no way likely, even if the entire world was 100% on nuclear

I don't. Einstein's quote rings alarms in my head here. Imagine all the inane incompetencies you've seen with current energies in your house, or at a mechanic, or simply flickering lights at a resaurant. Now imagine that these people now manage small fusion/fission bombs powering such devices.

we need to value labor a lot more to trust that sort of maintanance. And the US alone isn't too good at that. Let alone most of Asia and EMEA.

> 200m+

Were are you getting this from?

In any case if we look at the actual data nuclear has been extremely safe compared to burning fossil fuels. Add up all the nuclear disasters that have ever happened and adjusted by MWh generated it’s a few magnitudes safer than coal.

> Now imagine that these people now manage small fusion/fission bombs powering such devices.

Sure, they’ll have to be trained to the same standards as current nuclear engineers. Not trivial but obviously not exactly an unsolvable problem..

> Let alone most of Asia and EMEA.

Sorry but you’re just saying random things at this point..

You do know that as good as it might have been that TV show was still mostly fictional?

Does coal kill rich people? Nuclear meltdown does.

> Does coal kill rich people?

Certainly, they still breathe the same air, don’t they?

> Nuclear meltdown does.

I’m pretty sure that nuclear meltdowns are much, much easier to avoid. Even in Chernobyl almost all the casualties (shortterm and longterm) were amongst people directly handling and trying to contain a disaster. If you’re rich you’re unlikely to be a fireman..

Same. Its blatantly obvious the humanity is not up to the task.

So far nuclear has been extremely safe compared to some other energy sources (especially coal).