Experimental or not, it has among the least accidents per KWh. 500 is a big enough number for some reasonable statistics.
Surface coal mining doesn't leave many square miles of more or less uninhabitable wasteland that remains uninhabitable for many years in the future? Underground coal mines don't catch fire and render entire towns completely uninhabitable?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania
Many other energy sources have risks which are spread over many years. They just don't have that "omfg, scary scientific stuff I don't understand" factor.
There are orders of magnitude differences between this time span and radioactive material, right? The same is true of all your points, right?
I'm not anti nuclear, it may be preferable to coal, but it doesn't make the logic of those stats any better.
Coal will do more damage than nuclear on this metric, too.
A "severe" accident results in loss of life, or in square kilometers of land unexpectedly rendered unusable for habitation or agriculture.
I have yet to read any worst case scenarios for nuclear energy accidents which are anywhere comparable to this.
Lots of people die in mining accidents and mining byproducts cause water pollution.
NO2 emissions are horrid for human health—I don't have death count numbers at hand.
This is not to say nuclear failure isn't bad news, just that many large scale electricty generating schemes have a big downside and it's going to be a big ask to find 100% benign alternatives.
The Fukushima disaster, on the other hand, is poisoning square miles of land, air, sea, most likely the groundwater and probably hundreds of workers.
When you score risk, you multiply probability by impact. The power output and operational history of nuclear power indicates that the probability of failure is very low, but the impact is very high. (both in terms of severity and duration)
Should I say "citation needed" or just call it as FUD? I'd say that even with such a disaster at Fukushima, the impact has been very low. Even less so compared to the alternatives:
1) What are the levels of radiation that the workers were exposed to? Is that fatal or problematic for their health? How many people suffer from respiratory diseases related to fossil fuel burning?
2) What is more damaging to the environment: a nuclear plant or a coal mine? The amount of "poisoning" that happened will make the land inhabitable ever again? How much farm land would have to stop producing crops to give way to wind turbines?
Since the NY Times reported this morning that unprotected workers were burned by contaminated water suspected to be leaking from the #3 reactor, after ignoring warnings from personal radiation warning devices. I don't think its unreasonable to think that workers will suffer adverse health effects.
A safely operating nuclear power plant with an uninterrupted supply of fresh water and electricity has less impact to the surrounding area than your average coal mine. The problem is, as Fukushima aptly demonstrates, is that many of these facilities do not fail safe.
Again, think risk management. Probability vs. impact. You're letting your fondness for nuclear energy blind you from the obvious.
It's not like we don't have any idea what radiation does, is it? It's among the better studied of the human industrial health hazards, right? A lot better understood than, say, endocrine disruptors?
Because coal kills 30-60 industry workers every year. (Down from ~1200/yr in the late '40s).
† (Which, while more carcinogenic than the air in Chicago, is far less carcinogenic than failing to eat enough leafy green vegetables or a 4-times-a-week habit of eating red meat)
In the whole world, roughly a million people die every year due to the direct effects of coal power production. Most of that is because of the very dirty plants in use outside of the western world -- but even here, more than 50,000 people die every year because of coal.
If nothing new and catastrophic happens in the near future (it looks like the worst is being contained, but if another earthquake and/or tsunami hits the plant right now, the damage will be massive), the most casualties caused by the Daichi nuclear plant will be in Germany.
This is because Angela Merkel caved to political pressure and ordered the seven oldest nuclear reactors in Germany shut down for at least 3 months. During those 3 months, the plants would have generated 17 TWh, which will now need to be supplied from other sources. The most likely candidate for most of it is coal, because there is currently plenty of underutilized capacity. Coal power releases lots of SO2 and NO2 to the atmosphere, which directly kills people. By current data, 1 TWh of coal power produced in the western world kills roughly 15 people -- so when Merkel signed that moratorium, she signed death warrants for 250 people. (This estimate is probably seriously low -- notably, the coal plants currently running are the newer and cleaner ones, and the capacity that will be brought up to replace them will be dirtier. Also, I have not counted CO2 emissions in any way.)
If every nuclear reactor in the world operated constantly at the level of leakage and operator casualties that are happening at Daichi, nuclear would still be preferable to coal. If there was a Chernobyl every year, nuclear would still be preferable to coal. The normal operation of a coal plant over it's lifetime is more costly in human lives than the worst case nuclear accident of a modern nuclear plant.
The problem is that people are not afraid of dying -- they are afraid of dying in disasters. Nuclear accidents are concentrated. The casualties and the environmental damage caused by coal are diffuse.
Longer-term, you'd also have to factor in the benefit of being able to use electric tractors. (I don't think anybody actually does yet, mind you, but there's a clear advantage.)