This was the first publication I found from a google scholar search (there are others as well)[0] Nuclear has far fewer fatalities, but it's accidents are also

This was the first publication I found from a google scholar search (there are others as well)[0] Nuclear has far fewer fatalities, but it's accidents are also dramatically more expensive. Although both nuclear and hydro are having their numbers mostly driven by a single catastrophic event (the 1975 Banqiao Dam failure in China and Chernobyl), so how one feels about this whole analysis is going to depend on how likely one thinks future catastrophic events are to be. The numbers are so low that it's hard to come up with very rigorous estimates. I personally think that catastrophic accidents on the scale of Chernobyl are as close to impossible these days as makes no difference. I'm not even too worried about Fukushima level events (which was not particularly deadly but was very expensive) However, I have to admit that my opinion on that isn't really backed up be empirics, as is always going to be the case with rare events. [0]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652615009877?casa_token=qzTuLBZWBCgAAAAA:IMGNr1TlDdpGB5EknuzeGLfYqkQXNOwbdXfkXizQVoUfQW9cFqQbaTh2z-93-6XD2W_oPwTEKGY#fig1 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965261...