Nuclear power is usually not abandoned for being dangerous, but because it’s weirdly complex to keep it safe as compared to the alternatives [1]. This makes it one of the most expensive ways to produce energy (at least given European regulations). Also, the raw material is expected to be quite rare relatively soon.
I guess this may be more about the way caveman made their fire… and the multi-billion cavedollar structure for holding the magic stone can be annoying.
[1] reading other comments, I feel like it is necessary to clarify that by alternatives, I do refer to green energy like wind, solar and water, plus energy storage.
I agree that atomic energy is preferable to fossil energy in almost all regards. The most convincing aspect for me is that you can see, pack and store your by-products, at least somehow, while CO₂ emissions can only insufficiently be handled using carbon capture and storage (CCS).
People tend to understand dangers with visible effects easier (impressive boom) than indirect effects like climate change (less impressive, slow motion, yet possibly apocalyptic boom).
Definitely. Also, one could get the impression that profit is not always helpful for sustainable use of resources. Better not open a thread on forestry, agriculture or … whatever really …