Earlier quoted context omitted.
They literally ignored all of the guidance on safely operating a nuclear reactor and many who told them so. Fukushima was a tragedy, but it also would not have passed inspection in the US or Europe due to blatant disregard for safeguards. https://carnegieendowment.org/2012/03/06/why-fukushima-was-p... here is an unbiased source on this and how it was utterly preventable.
The problem is that people no longer believe that there is no risk of a similar document being written in the future, similarly saying that it would have been preventable, only bearing the name of their home town.
The big difference is the need for active cooling in both Fukushima and Chernobyl. The new ones don’t need that.
I know that sounds like the same thing as “an rbmk reactor cannot explode”, but that’s very dismissive of decades of work since then by people completely unrelated to those responsible for past disasters. All major nuclear disasters or near disasters like three mile island were from old systems which used active cooling.
The energy output of nuclear is unmatched, its safer than it used to be, and I’m pretty sure most of the expense comes from red tape. I think its good to have learned some hubris from past mistakes, but abandoning that technology would be like abandoning spaceflight. The star trek motto is not “to responsibly stay where we already are.”
When it comes down to the raw physics, I don’t see how most renewables can compete. It seems like the cost effectiveness is being distorted by subsidies for renewables and red tape for nuclear. If renewables actually are cost competitive now or close too it and can legitimately be used without requiring energy rationing and causing grid problems, thats great, but I don’t really see how that’s possible.
At the end of the day I don’t really care whats generating power, I just think it’s foolish to not try to have as much as possible, and I don’t see how something as energy dense as nuclear wouldn’t be massively beneficial.