Nuclear is not safe. Every plant has had accidents and leaks. Nuclear power is uninsurable and no insurance company will touch it. Major accidents like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima cannot be cleaned up at all -- ever. Nuclear is not carbon neutral. Mining and processing uranium use lots of carbon-powered machines. Nuclear waste is a problem still unsolved and, IMHO, unsolvable. And nuclear is not cost effective so it relies on huge government subsidies.
Many countries are pulling away from nuclear power for these reasons.
A great resource for anyone interested in some facts about nuclear which are not widely discussed should check out Helen Caldicott's book, Nuclear Power is Not The Answer: https://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Power-Answer-Helen-Caldicott/...
I'm also reasonably sure that nuclear still produces a lot less carbon dioxide than coal or gas fired plants, even if you account for mining operations.
Safety is indeed a problem, especially with the old designs we're running now. But you have to weigh the risks of localized disasters with the risk of catastrophic climate change.
The main problem is the high cost of nuclear plants and the long time it takes to build them. It is entirely unclear whether investing into new plants right now makes sense, or whether we should rather dump the money into battery storage. What doesn't make sense though is turning existing nuclear plants off, as we did for example in Germany, or building new coal plants instead of new nuclear plants because base-load plants are still necessary.
> Nuclear is not safe.
First, why is this the case?
Second, how do you know that your supporting "why" is true? Is it possible that your source of information is biased in some way? Is it possible that there could be technological advances that have happened since 2006 when Helen wrote her book?