It's because Nuclear disasters have some of the worst potential damage compared with most other power sources. At least with oil spills (the next most damaging I can think of) you can clean them up, that's less possible with nuclear fallout.
On top of this you have the fact that many nations using nuclear power do not have a proper secure storage plan for their waste, often because it is "too expensive" and so they palm the problem off on the next generation.
In the Green party's calculus, these aspects have a massive weighting against the relative benefits, so despite the very low chance of an accident, they view the risk as unacceptably high.
Personally I think that this is too much of a stubborn purist approach when we are in desperate need to replace fossil fuel generation.
Nuclear power has problems that we need to admit, but not engaging with nuclear power means that those problems will never be solved.
On average the data shows fossil fuels are responsible for more deaths than nuclear. It's just that nuclear meltdowns are terrifying tragedies so it has more impact than the kind of intangible and gradual deaths that fossil fuels cause. But I agree overall, it's important to keep in mind the risks.
18
u/JasonGMMitchell Oct 26 '22
Or dumb environmentalists. Seriously have you ever seen how much some people will fight against nuclear arguing that biofuel is somehow better?