> not capable of handling the responsibilities that come with nuclear power. What responsibilities? If those are: not killing / harming people, and not destroy

> not capable of handling the responsibilities that come with nuclear power. What responsibilities? If those are: not killing / harming people, and not destroying ecosystems, then nuclear appears to be favourable compared to other sources. Fossil fuels cause great harm to health and the environment. Hydro requires flooding of large areas of land, often destroying habitats, and wind and solar are only currently useful as supplementary energy sources, due to the difficulty in storing energy economically. Renewables aren't statistically less deadly either. You can be against energy consumption in general, but I think this equates to primitivism or antinatalism which would itself increase human suffering. In high-income economies I admit there could be a substantive decrease in consumption without significantly harming quality of life, but much of the world's population is in the situation of needing to increase their consumption to reach what we would regard as minimal living standards.