Yeah, the (online) left is weirdly “fuck yeah science!” on nuclear and the counterpart is still riding on the legacy of the 1980s anti-nuclear movement, opposing it under any circumstances.

I’m personally of the opinion nuclear should be phased out eventually, but coal, oil, gas and other minor fossil fueled energy has a way higher priority to go first.

It also matters little, because energy under capitalism is dependent on the infighting between factions of capital. Like the much-mocked German shutdown of nuclear power. Half opportunism to prevent the electoral rise of the green party and half gift to the mining corporation RWE. Had it not happened, it would be the firms dealing with nuclear power supply, etc. to profit. Nothing gets done without the bourgeois benefitting.

It would seem the problem is capital, not what policy to follow.

I got an error there. They are built by water sources but 11 of 15 power rely on evaporative cooling via cooling towers. There is the possibility of dry cooling, which doesn’t use external water.

• Geological stability is not relevant with on site storage in spent fuel pools or dry caskets.
• If you keep risk assessment up to date that is not a problem (tsunami walls, emergency pumps/generators automatic shutdown, …)
• Security risks are of a concern not only for nuclear power plants. Think of pumped hydro. The Ukrainian reactors at Zaporizhzhia have very high standards of protection. Thick concrete walls, steel containment. It would be cheaper to start nuclear attacks, than to try to create a nuclear catastrophe by damaginh the reactors. But better save than sorry, hence the warnings by IAEO.
• Ground stability is a factor in every building. Especially high ones with small ground area and strong forces acting on them… like wind turbines.