I used to be an advocate for nuclear energy but over time I've become it has no future because: 1. Even if it's safer by any objective measure (deaths/kWh for

I used to be an advocate for nuclear energy but over time I've become it has no future because: 1. Even if it's safer by any objective measure (deaths/kWh for example) the failure modes are much, much worse. A fossil fuel plant just can't make thousands of square miles uninhabitable for decades. This isn't an exaggeration. The Chernobyl absolute exclusion zone is currently 1000mi^2 [1]. This is like how people are afraid to fly but not drive when flying (on.commercial jets at least) is undeniably safer; 2. Processing of fuel creates waste we just don't have a good way of dealing with (eg UF6); 3. Spent fuel creates waste we just don't have a good way of dealing with; 4. Decommissioning nuclear power plants creates waste we just don't have a good way of dealing with; 5. The above three costs seem to be borne by governments. It's still unclear to me if companies who run nuclear power plants are paying the true costs; 5. I just don't trust companies to manage nuclear plants safely long term; 7. I don't trust most governments to manage nuclear plants long term; and 8. Many nuclear power advocates will bring up coal as the counterexample. That's a false dichotomy. Wind and solar costs continue to plummet. Natural gas, while still a fossil fuel, has way less negative externalities than coal. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Exclusion_Zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Exclusion_Zone