"nuclear power is the safest" I am not sure that I come to the same conclusion. I remember reading in Forbes about a promising new technology whereby you could reintegrate the exhaust from carbon based power plants thereby eliminating their carbon emissions. Since I don't believe in perpetual motion I'm am now predisposed to being highly skeptical of anything in that magazine that purports to be science based. That said I take the point that there are quite a few externals to any power generation technology and that a superficial examination can be misleading.
Less deaths per kilowatt is too much of a bumper sticker for me. What bothers me is that a competent technological culture like Japan's was unable to prevent a meltdown and only very luckily did not have a fuel fire which would have resulted in a much bigger exclusion zone than now exists. As much as this seems like a technological problem that is fixable with engineering I think it is in reality a political and economic problem and that is what makes it so dangerous.
From a pure engineering perspective nuclear energy might well be "clean, safe, to cheap to meter" but I don't think it has been in reality and I don't think it can be. My opinion doesn't really matter, China is building the equivalent of 2 500 megawatt coal plants a week, and is planning on 40 gigawatts of nuclear by 2015. I hope your right that new designs are inherently safe, but ask yourself; what else would somebody whose career or investment depended on building one say?
But it is the safest, regardless of how that makes you feel. Also, considering the two big boys on the block are nuclear and coal, compare the two together, and nuclear becomes even a better option. I like the idea of, "I remember reading in Forbes about a promising new technology whereby you could reintegrate the exhaust from carbon based power plants thereby eliminating their carbon emissions." I am sure there are perfectly clean and perfectly safe power production methods. I'm also 100% sure none of them exist yet. What does exist now? An ever increasing demand for power. In the U.S., we are approaching a time when our demand is going to be greater than our supply. Which will leave you the option of more nukes, or more coal plants. I've worked in a nuclear plant, I've been in a coal plant. I can tell you first hand which one is cleaner and safer. I can also tell you which one I would rather have a house near, and that would be nuclear, which I do live within 5 miles of. Wind and solar are great, but they will never replace nuclear or coal, they will only supplement it. So between nuclear and coal, I'll choose the proven safer one.
Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)
Coal (elect, heat,cook –world avg) 100 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal electricity – world avg 60 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal (elect,heat,cook)– China 170
Coal electricity- China 90
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (0.2% of world energy for all solar)
Wind 0.15 (1.6% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)
