I hope the Climate Activists are proud of the effect their lies are having on the younger generation

mapj1: 
 

There are good engineering and safety reasons for not reintroducing nuclear fission power plants which have nothing at all to do with any of the issues about climate change and neither do they have anything to do with scaremongering. There is first of all the operational safety; second, the waste problem, which has not been solved in seventy years. But that is not the topic of this thread.

At the risk of stirring, I disagree.

You are very welcome to disagree with anything I say. This is off-topic, so if we want to carry on we might want to move to another thread.

operational safety is good 

You refer to historical operational safety. The historical operational safety of nuclear weapons is also good. But the safety is not. Scott Sagan and Eric Schlosser have had their say (both studies very well worth reading). And there is (rather, was) the magnificent Stanislav Petrov, who likely saved the world in 1983. 

The safety of NPPs is not what I would call generally good, although it differs by country. The Union of Concerned Scientists has substantial material on safety incidents in NPPs. Constance Perin's study Shouldering Risks about how the people part works is also eye-opening. Then there is Chick Perrow's last book, The Next Catastrophe. He points out, as did Dave Lochbaum, that the emergency-generation systems of the Westinghouse BWR-I, being located in the basement, are susceptible to flooding, as indeed happened in 2011 at Fukushima Daiichi, which led to core meltdown. Lee Clarke's Worst Cases is also relevant.

The point about NPP safety is that the worst case is so very bad that it falls outside the usual engineering concepts of risk (besides that, there is no reliable way to quantify the probability of a worst-case event). I could probably write a book about it … oh, I did.

Waste - you need a big car park.

You need a big car park, sealed from the environment, and guaranteed to remain so sealed for at least 10,000 years. People have been looking for one for seventy years and have not found one yet. And it's getting bigger all the time (as the Beatles might have said).

Compare to mining accidents or leaks of nasty  chemicals that have killed folk over the same period that seem to have a few a year, (Bhopal disaster, Exxon Valdez, Probo Koala, Aberfan, Sago mine, Flint Water scandal ..) 

Sure, there are plenty of historical industrial accidents that turned out to be worse than, say, Chernobyl, although there is quite some dispute about how many people died because of Chernobyl. However, had the wind been the way it usually was at the time of the Chernobyl accident, it would likely have wiped out Kiev, which alone would have been an order of magnitude worse than Bhopal, often thought to be the worst to date. That is what I mean about the difference between historical operational safety and safety. We're still here. We might so easily not have been in 1984. That doesn't mean that LOW and MAD have turned out to be OK. 

mapj1: 
 

There are good engineering and safety reasons for not reintroducing nuclear fission power plants which have nothing at all to do with any of the issues about climate change and neither do they have anything to do with scaremongering. There is first of all the operational safety; second, the waste problem, which has not been solved in seventy years. But that is not the topic of this thread.

At the risk of stirring, I disagree.

You are very welcome to disagree with anything I say. This is off-topic, so if we want to carry on we might want to move to another thread.

operational safety is good 

You refer to historical operational safety. The historical operational safety of nuclear weapons is also good. But the safety is not. Scott Sagan and Eric Schlosser have had their say (both studies very well worth reading). And there is (rather, was) the magnificent Stanislav Petrov, who likely saved the world in 1983. 

The safety of NPPs is not what I would call generally good, although it differs by country. The Union of Concerned Scientists has substantial material on safety incidents in NPPs. Constance Perin's study Shouldering Risks about how the people part works is also eye-opening. Then there is Chick Perrow's last book, The Next Catastrophe. He points out, as did Dave Lochbaum, that the emergency-generation systems of the Westinghouse BWR-I, being located in the basement, are susceptible to flooding, as indeed happened in 2011 at Fukushima Daiichi, which led to core meltdown. Lee Clarke's Worst Cases is also relevant.

The point about NPP safety is that the worst case is so very bad that it falls outside the usual engineering concepts of risk (besides that, there is no reliable way to quantify the probability of a worst-case event). I could probably write a book about it … oh, I did.

Waste - you need a big car park.

You need a big car park, sealed from the environment, and guaranteed to remain so sealed for at least 10,000 years. People have been looking for one for seventy years and have not found one yet. And it's getting bigger all the time (as the Beatles might have said).

Compare to mining accidents or leaks of nasty  chemicals that have killed folk over the same period that seem to have a few a year, (Bhopal disaster, Exxon Valdez, Probo Koala, Aberfan, Sago mine, Flint Water scandal ..) 

Sure, there are plenty of historical industrial accidents that turned out to be worse than, say, Chernobyl, although there is quite some dispute about how many people died because of Chernobyl. However, had the wind been the way it usually was at the time of the Chernobyl accident, it would likely have wiped out Kiev, which alone would have been an order of magnitude worse than Bhopal, often thought to be the worst to date. That is what I mean about the difference between historical operational safety and safety. We're still here. We might so easily not have been in 1984. That doesn't mean that LOW and MAD have turned out to be OK.