I have no doubt that all advocates for nuclear would agree Chernobyl is not acceptable, and that Chernobyl can't happen in more modern reactor designs. If Fuku

I have no doubt that all advocates for nuclear would agree Chernobyl is not acceptable, and that Chernobyl can't happen in more modern reactor designs. If Fukushima is the worst case (and newer designs may even avoid/prevent Fukushima style event entirely), I'd say the cost is acceptable. ~300 square km area that's affected is relatively small, given the grand scheme of things - it would be certainly much, much less impact than coal mining has on land use and pollution (by mining itself, not counting the effect of burning coal). So if I have a magic wand, I'd happily remove all coal mining and power plants, and replace them all with nuclear power plants (though not necessarily put them on the same location), and I think humanity will be better off. In the really long term, if/when there's enough energy storage solutions, I think we may not need much of nuclear power plants anymore. But I think we can not wait for that to be viable as the climate disaster is already on its way.