# data[].attributes.body
While the other solutions mentioned are easily implemented in the current state of the world, they still leave problems, principle among them being the waste. A good alternative (once the scientific basis is thoroughly laid out) may be fusion power, as it only has inert helium as a byproduct.

# data[].attributes.body
1
2
3
4
5

# data[].attributes.body
All Nuclear Power Plants today work on fission power- where very large and dense elements cannot retain their stability, and slowly shoot small particles off, creating heat in the process. These particles kickstart the same reaction in other particles, creating more heat and continuing the reaction. This heat is harvested for energy.

# data[].attributes.body
The fission reactions that drive nuclear power have their own issues- for instance, when they shoot off particles, they "decay" into lighter elements, some of which can be much more stable and very toxic, and thus hard to dispose of. Nuclear waste disposal is one of the biggest drawbacks of Nuclear Power.

# data[].attributes.headline
Intersections and Deviations of Stakeholders

# data[].attributes.subject
Intersections and Deviations of Stakeholders

# data[].attributes.body
Intersection
Nuclear power is in the best interests of both the private and public sector for multiple reasons- it's cost-effective, somewhat sustainable, and very space-efficient. Fixing problems with meltdowns would increase the scalability of nuclear power, benefitting both.
Deviation
While nuclear power as a whole is a benefit to both the public and private sectors, the two have different goals in mind, which causes their optimal practices to diverge at multiple points. As just one example, while it is in the benefit of the general population to dispose of the radioactive waste properly, it is not in the benefit of the corporations- to maximize profit, they would rather dump it wherever is easiest and least costly.

# data[].attributes.body
Obviously, constructing a nuclear power plant near the ocean in an area where earthquakes and tsunamis were somewhat common was asinine from the start- but it would not have been an issue had the location and sources of the backup power been more diverse. Nuclear reactors are extremely unlikely to melt down if those requirements are met.

# data[].attributes.body
Many people would benefit from safer nuclear power:
Private entities- would benefit from a safer investment in nuclear power and fewer lawsuits.
Governments- would benefit from a power grid with increased capacity and stability, without worrying about meltdowns. In some cases, the meltdown and/or removal of nuclear power would be economically unwise. Source
Environmental Activists- would benefit from the efficient, clean energy supply in fission reactions.

# data[].attributes.body
In 2011, the Nuclear Power Plant, consisting of ten units, in Fukushima, Japan was damaged by a massive earthquake that struck Japan. Directly thereafter, it was hit by a tsunami caused by said earthquake. Given the poorly-conceived layout of the infrastructure, the tsunami wiped out all emergency power supplies for four of the ten reactors- because of this, they could not be safely cooled. Luckily in this case, the construction of the reactors' hulls was able to contain the dangerous material, however it did cause some other parts of the reactor to become extremely unsafe, and the effects could have been catastrophic with only slightly different conditions.
Source

# data[].attributes.body
The most dangerous part about Nuclear Power- at least on the surface- is the possibility for a meltdown. When the reactor isn't properly cooled, it can be extremely dangerous- sending off toxic vapors, melting the metal of the reactor chamber, and in some cases, exploding.