Ultimately, I think one fundamental &quot;problem&quot; with nuclear power is the worst case scenario at the plant level.<p>Big picture wise, I&#x27;m sure it is statistically be safer than fossil fuels (counting the problems of fossil fuel pollution and the environmental problems &#x2F; lives lost due to the extraction process). But looking at the power plant itself, and focusing on the worst case, the only other form of power I can think of with the potential to create a Chernobyl type disaster is hydro (as dam failures can create pretty widespread destruction and kill hundreds of thousands -- see the Banqiao Dam disaster). Coal &#x2F; oil &#x2F; gas plants that explode kill people too, but generally only within the plant boundaries.<p>Even a hydro disaster won&#x27;t necessarily make 1000 square miles of land uninhabitable for 200-300 years, ala Chernobyl. The only comparable thing I can think of in the energy realm that comes close to that is coal mine fires (ala Centralia PA), and that&#x27;s at the extraction level, not the plant level.<p>I&#x27;m actually struggling with your assertion that nuclear power has killed more people than solar... peer reviewed estimates of Chernobyl vary between 4,000 and 25,000, is there a solar disaster on that scale that I&#x27;m not aware of?