Nuclear power plants are usually located quite some distance away from larger settlements. This has multiple reasons - NIMBYism mostly - but it also severely re

Nuclear power plants are usually located quite some distance away from larger settlements. This has multiple reasons - NIMBYism mostly - but it also severely reduces the impact a disaster would have. Evacuate that area and don't touch it for x decades. Except for the core areas, it will basically turn into a national park. Only disadvantage is that it would be mostly unusable for humans. It's sad to have to think about this way, but to me it's much more acceptable to have a Chernobyl or a Fukushima every 50 years than permanently f*king up our ecosystems and threatening the continued survival of hundreds of millions of people due to climate change. Consider that both disasters were caused by plants with outdated designs that were kept running for way longer than reasonable. On top of that, they were handled not only somewhat negligently, but outright hazardously. The Fukushima plant was hit by a freaking tsunami and was not completely set up to mitigate the risks posed by natural hazards (this was known since the '90s) Newer plants generally have safety features that completely prevent or at least help contain the hazards of the older designs. And many of them are built like fortresses. Especially Soviet designs are impregnable to all but dedicated attacks with bunker busters or thermobaric weapons.