My explanation of evidence that supports my statement in a few sentences!

Nuclear energy will always provide energy, no matter the circumstances. Whereas types of renewable energy require certain conditions to function. For example, if there is no wind blowing, wind energy will not be ideal.

About 3 million packages of radioactive materials are shipped each year in the United States, either by highway, rail, air, or water. The rules are constantly updated to ensure proper transportation. In 1961, the IAEA published its first regulations for the safe transport of radioactive material. These regulations have been updated regularly over the last 50 years

Spent nuclear fuel can be recycled to make new fuel and byproducts.Some countries like France reprocess and recycle nuclear fuel, extracting elements still capable of generating energy for use in new fuel and encasing the radioactive byproducts in solid glass logs for permanent disposal.

The main reason that the nuclear power plant shut down is that it became no longer financially feasible. Not only was it the largest nuclear power plant dismantling, but it also required a workforce of 400+ workers.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors

Most deaths beside from Chernyoble

2-4 deaths are the result of large uncontrolled radiation sources. There have number of accidents in experimental reactors. At Windscale, UK, in 1957 – but none of these resulted in loss of life outside the actual plant, or long-term environmental contamination.

Uranium is a very common substance found in rocks, soil and seawater. Although it is not always found in high concentrations, it is found in many different locations and easily extracted with conventional methods. Today, the worlds known uranium sources have even increased. It's amount today is enough to supply the world's current demand for many years, even with increasing demand scenarios.

Could any of the 103 nuclear reactors in the United States be turned into a bomb? No. The laws of physics preclude it. In a nuclear weapon, radioactive atoms are packed densely enough within a small chamber to initiate an instantaneous explosive chain reaction. A reactor is far too large to produce the density and heat needed to create a nuclear explosion.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors

The evidence over six decades shows that nuclear power is a safe means of generating electricity. The risk of accidents in nuclear power plants is low and declining. The consequences of an accident or terrorist attack are minimal compared with other commonly accepted risks.

MYTH

No, this is a common misconception often seen in media. Our bodies don't have the sensors the detect radioactivity like alpha-particles, beta-particles, and gamma rays. Radioactivity is "invisible" to our bodies.

Nuclear energy is more reliable than both green house gasses and coal due to routine maintenance and refueling. This means these sources of energy must be paired with a reliable base load power like nuclear. A nuclear reactor typically produces 1 GW of energy. Due to generation capacity, to produce this same amount of energy, you would need 2-3 coal plants. Nuclear is also a greener option as it produces almost 0 carbon emissions. This means a there is a way to keep the planet greener for longer and can reduce global warming and climate change, which is associated with the burning of fossil fuels and their co2 emissions.

https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/what-nuclear-energy-and-why-it-considered-clean-energy#:~:text=Nuclear%20energy%20is%20sometimes%20referred,burning%20fossil%20fuels%20for%20energy.

(we also need a power source for when the coal runs out)

“Even in extreme situations, like meltdowns, nuclear reactors release radiation but do not explode like atomic bombs. Their design prevents that kind of rapid energy release.”

(Source: World Nuclear Association - https://world-nuclear.org/

According to Nuclear Information and Resource Service, there is truly no safe dose of radiation. This is due to the side effects that have been seen correlated to these very low levels of radiation, which include skin changes, nausea, fatigue, and even problems eating/drinking. Too much radiation can also cause major problems inside the body like damage to tissues, and changing the cell structure/damaging DNA.

According to the EIA (Energy Information Administration), nuclear power facilities in the United States generated nearly as much energy as coal units in 2022. One pound of coal produced less than one megawatt-hour of power, while one pound of uranium fuel produced nearly twenty-one megawatt-hours on average. This challenges the notion that one pound of uranium is equivalent to fifty tons (100,000 pounds) of coal and highlights that uranium has a significantly higher energy density than coal.

This "fact" is a myth.

-> What is the heat content of U.S. coal?

-> Nuclear explained Nuclear power and the environment

To make these comparisons fair, we can’t just look at the total deaths from each source: fossil fuels still dominate our global electricity mix, so we would expect that they would kill more people. Let’s look at this comparison in the chart. Fossil fuels and biomass kill many more people than nuclear and modern renewables per unit of electricity. Coal is, by far, the dirtiest.

The lifespan of a nuclear powerplant is generally 20-40 years, although it is possible for them to survive longer. Even though it is possible, no nuclear power plant has made it to 60 years. It is very possible, however, for them to survive far beyond 20 years.

According to the World Nuclear Association (WNA), Nuclear power plants produce no greenhouse gas emissions during operation, and over the course of its life-cycle, nuclear produces about the same amount of carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions per unit of electricity as wind, and one-third of the emissions per unit of electricity when compared with solar. Although steam is the only direct air pollutant emitted by nuclear power plants, we have to take into consideration that high amounts of energy used to produce the materials and tools. According to U.S. Energy Information Administration, the processes for mining and refining uranium ore and making reactor fuel all require large amounts of energy. Nuclear power plants also have large amounts of metal and concrete, which require large amounts of energy to manufacture. If fossil fuels are used for mining and refining uranium ore, or if fossil fuels are used when constructing the nuclear power plant, then the emissions from burning those fuels could be associated with the electricity that nuclear power plants generate.

Spent nuclear fuel can be recycled to make new fuel and byproducts.Some countries like France reprocess and recycle nuclear fuel, extracting elements still capable of generating energy for use in new fuel and encasing the radioactive byproducts in solid glass logs for permanent disposal

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power

According to World Nuclear Association Nuclear power plants are expensive to build but relatively cheap to run. In many places, nuclear energy is competitive with fossil fuels as a means of electricity generation. In addition the operating cost of these plants is lower than almost all fossil fuel competitors, with a very low risk of operating cost inflation. Overall the upfront cost for nuclear power is big but its long term opperation costs are low.

The main concern that surrounds the usage of Nuclear energy are it's byproducts: uranium mill tailings, spent (used) reactor fuel, and other radioactive wastes. The radioactive decaying duration can last from 1,000-10,000 years. Therefore, materials have the potential to remain environmentally persistent/radioactive and dangerous to human health for thousands of years. Though 97% of the waste is considered as low/intermediate level waste, it must be disposed of/transported correctly in order to prevent leakages and contamination to the air/water. Additionally, high level waste still does exist at .2%, which is the top priority for isolation. We wouldn't need to isolate nuclear waste so meticulously if it didn't pose a threat to the environment.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realities

Nuclear waste is the most impactful to the environment because the materials in the waste are radioactive. These radioactive materials are very dangerous and can remain radioactive for thousands of years.