It's sad and strange that we treat it as if it had caused hundreds or thousands of deaths, and our response to it is to increase fossil fuel use, which definitely will lead to more death and pollution.
Read for yourself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_disaster
My understanding was that root-cause was old design and not sufficiently secure back-up power and failure to get such on site. Which could have been done, but was not.
The outcome we had for Fukushima was not the only one possible. It could have been better, much better, and it could have been worse, much worse. That fact that one of the most advanced and earthquake prepared nations in the world even got close to having a Fukushima event, let alone actually had one, should paint a clear picture of pitfalls of nuclear power.
We need power the scales for the world. The most urgent need for clean power is in developing countries, which are actually not the countries who would have the best chance to run a safe nuclear power plant.
Solar is already scaling, it's already safe, it's already cost effective. Utility-scale storage is already more than on the way and is dropping in price quickly, and it's not even a problem with solar until solar penetrates a larger percentage of the grid anyways. Do I think that nuclear plants in modern countries should be shutting down: No. But the real justification to supporting nuclear over solar for the future of our power grid is to be a contrarian or because you think nuclear power is cool.
And solar won't be replacing the nuclear plants that are being shut down. Coal and gas will.
I already stated that I don't support the shutting down of existing nuclear plants. But it hardly matters, the plants shutting down a very small part of the global grid, what matters is the future of the grid. Solar and wind with storage should be the future of the grid.