Plus the radiation from the 3 major nuclear accidents caused a lot of problems the article doesn't acknowledge. In France the number of cancers increased a lot

Plus the radiation from the 3 major nuclear accidents caused a lot of problems the article doesn't acknowledge. In France the number of cancers increased a lot for the generation living on the east border during Tchernobyl. One of my friends had to have his thyroid removed. Fukushima is still leaking radiation in the ocean (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/fukushima-nuclear-disaster-radiation-lethal-levels-leak-japan-tsunami-tokyo-electric-power-company-a8190981.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/fukushima-nucl...) and we can't (don't ?) measure the consequences. Then of course you have the burring sites. And the fact it's used to create bombs and we need only to fail one time to prevent a terrorist to getting one, but they can try again and again. So yes, nuclear energy is an interesting source of technology, but it's not the perfect source HN readers love to depict. It's also very expensive, and the calculations for the cost of nuclear energy usually completely ignore the cost of destroying the plant on retirement. I'm glad we have it, it has many benefits, but let's keep trying to find something better. Wind, solar, fusion...