Frankly, I don't trust the Human to manage the risk of a nuclear installation. Look what Humans are doing elsewhere in every other domain. We don't need the sun to be brought to Earth.
People make way to big a deal of how amazingly complex nuclear plants are. Its not some magical spell that prevents demons from entering the world.
And the potential of accidents even in case of terrorist attack (or whatever fantasy scenario) is far smaller then people want to claim.
Any time extension is a tradeoff, there's nothing wrong with extending the lifespan if the regulators are okay with it.
> there's nothing wrong with extending the lifespan if the regulators are okay with it.
Perhaps! Unless regulators make a mistake, or are pressured politically or by industry to extend licenses when they ought not be. I'm not sure I'd want to go into a hypothetical 2030s where the US had scores of nuclear power plants to decommission two decades after the end of their original lifespan.
So, no, nuclear energy is about the safest means of producing energy we have today. Offsetting environmental damage to third world countries to mine your rare earth minerals for solar does not get to make you feel better about it. Nuclear installations are not handled like a shitty startup that goes "wE'Re AgIlE wE'lL dEaL WiTh iT iN tImE". The IAEA is absurdly stringent on their requirements. The ASN in France puts such harsh conditions and requires every crucial safety equipment to be not just doubled, but tripled. There is no domain in which we are more demanding.
Interesting perspective of relative risks in life. Makes me think of Boeing's 737MAX that should have gone through a new type certification process and was instead allowed (by regulators in multiple countries) to apply software to make it seem like it flies like other 737s. This saved on pilot retraining costs, and resulted in a couple mass deaths. We don't seem to be coherent with risks.