>> In 2012, ex-prime minister Naoto Kan was >> there was a chance that people might not be able to live in the capital zone > Still, how should a person's opin

>> In 2012, ex-prime minister Naoto Kan was >> there was a chance that people might not be able to live in the capital zone > Still, how should a person's opinions have scientific value? It is not about his opinions but about the maximal potential effect of the nuclear accident, as described to him by TEPCO (Japan's nuclear operator) staff. > The scientific report Was established AFTER the accident, using complete and stable data. The Prime Minister had to decide DURING the accident, with partial and sometimes obsolete/volatile available data. Given the extent of the potential max evacuation (reaching up to Tokyo) the (way smaller) evacuation zone defined seem pretty conservative to me. > you may not have a completely scientific background Here you are again. Who will, in your opinion, be convinced by this sort of 'argument'? > the report I shared (page 58) discusses the worst-case scenario commissioned by Kan from the Japan Atomic Energy Commission: "The conclusion was that there was time to spare before a worst-case scenario would be reached, and that for the time being there was no need to reevaluate the current evacuation zones." This is utterly absurd. This conclusion was reached way too late, the report states (same page) that in order to produce this conclusion the experts "finished their work in three days". In your opinion during a major nuclear accident everyone around the plant will quietly sit and wait 3 days? Is it a joke? I already answered: the worst was avoided thanks to sheer luck (some reactors were shut down, some emergency cooling was against all odds possible, winds favorably blew a fair part of the dangerous stuff away...). > A 60-year-old power plant withstood the most powerful earthquake in Japan and failed only due to a tsunami, causing one death. Officially much more deaths (2200+), as already proved, and long-term effects are disputed. Plus huge damage. > If that's not a demonstration of nuclear power safety, what is? This is relative. How many victims would some renewable equipment (a field of wind turbines or solar panels) destroyed by a natural disaster cause? > I have posted a risk analysis below that highlights how dams are statistically not as safe compared to other structures. I answered: this is only valid if retaining the Banqiao dam case while considering that a nuclear reactor exposed to the same challenges wouldn't have caused more damage. > fail to rationally assess radiological risks and do not understand risk aversion. The scientific debate about all this (linear no-threshold, hormesis, bioaccumulation...) rages. > fatalities per GWh are extremely low for current generation reactors compared to other energy sources The real amount of damage on health and biotopes is disputed, moreover a single major accident may bump the figures up (Russian-roulette style). > hype and investment cause prices to collapse, ignoring incentives (100+ billion per year for renewables). > 2. LCOE completely ignores the capacity factor and reliability of various technologies This is less and less a challenge, the way lower LCOE of renewables manages budget to compensate it, and many ways to do so (mainly V2G) use equipment (batteries) which is required whatever the type of energy source (even with an impossible "100% nuclear gridpower" scenario: we need batteries for transportation). > overproduction costs One of the trick is to use the continental grid which is needed even with the "100% nuclear" scenario in order to optimize, reduce the probability of failure, quickly restart after a local failure... Another is to produce green hydrogen for the backup. Result: less and less overproduction. > backup costs Nuclear also needs backup, this is about the amount and nature of it. Amount: storage (batteries) and continental-scale interconnections will reduce it. Nature: it emit less and less unwanted stuff, mainly thanks to green hydrogen. > Lazard's LCOE calculations take the cost of nuclear power from the most expensive U.S. reactor, which is intellectually dishonest. It would be dishonest if other recent or ongoing project in the US was more successful. Which one is? > If China raises prices, imposes tariffs, or halts exports, decarbonizing by 2050 would be impossible. How does this show diversification? This is not intrinsic to renewables, we can decide to enhance our autonomy, then do so. Uranium dependancy is totally different as no one can 'decide' to create local uranium reserves. >> In most nuclearized Western nations, there is no uranium to mine and no existing industrial way to tackle this challenge. Any conflict could disrupt the uranium market. > False. > "Australia is estimated to have the largest reserves, followed by Kazakhstan, Canada, and Russia." This reinsures the US (anglosphere) and Russia, but doesn't do anything for "most nuclearized Western nations". If uranium becomes scarce most nuclearized Western nations (France, Hungary, Netherlands, Switzerland, UK, Finland, Romania, Czech Rep., Sweden, Belgium, Spain...) will have to pray and obey to superpowers. On the other hand even superpowers cannot bar a nation from obtaining energy from the wind or the sun. > nuclear fuel is not limited to uranium: Please name a satisfying ready-to-deploy industrial nuclear reactor not needing uranium. There is none.