Managing nuclear fission is something that can be done safely. At fukushima they had (from memory) 6 reactors - 4 had been upgraded and 2 were left un-improve

Managing nuclear fission is something that can be done safely. At fukushima they had (from memory) 6 reactors - 4 had been upgraded and 2 were left un-improved for cost / benefit reasons. The 4 that were upgraded safely failed in the flood - the other 2 caused the problem. And this is my argument - the reactors were not on their A-game. One slip, one B-level decision, one in decades and decades and the price is paid. And this is for one of the richest countries on Earth. Who is going to build and run the nuclear reactors in Argentina, Sudan, Belize. Will they be on their A-game in 2045? Why choose the option with the high cost and the nasty downside when you literally do not have to.