There are a lot of good arguments for wind, and I’m not arguing against it, but density and consistency are well known issues. You absolutely cannot replace a nuclear plant with a wind farm of the same size and get the same output. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, wind farms can often coexist with other land uses, but that’s still a disruptive environment.

It’s good to put pressure on nuclear, the reason it’s so incredibly safe is because it’s highly regulated, but to completely ignore it is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

The question isn’t “are nuclear plants perfectly safe”, the question is “will adding nuclear plants to our energy portfolio reduce the risks from climate change enough to offset the risks they introduce.”

I think, in that framework, replacing existing coal power plants with modern nuclear reactors is a huge overall benefit.

Wind and solar are great but there’s still a lot of work needed on storage and transmission before they can be viable grid scale. Realistically, saying no to nuclear doesn’t mean more wind, it means more natural gas. And those LNG tankers really are floating bombs.

Almost anything has the potential to negatively affect tens of thousands of people when it’s managed as recklessly and negligently as Chernobyl.

Chernobyl was less a reactor and more a bomb with a very long fuse. Saying we shouldn’t build nuclear reactors today is like saying you shouldn’t take a modern cruise because 14th century sailing ships sank all the time.

Obviously building one wind turbine is less disruptive, but you need hundreds to get the same output, and they only work when it’s windy.

Those wind turbines and solar panels also get constructed, and affect a much larger area. It’s not an obvious comparison

And a dam failure isn’t that much better than a nuclear accident, and far more common and less regulated

That list records 8 fatalities related to nuclear power in the US. All time.

Coal is responsible for more than 40. Per year. Just in my city.