Nuclear power unfortunately comes with invisible tail risk. No mathematical model can predict it. Unless power plants are built deep below the ground eventually something will bring the catastrophe.
Banqio dam killed 174,000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
Chernobyl, on the other hand, the deadliest and worst nuclear power plant disaster in history killed 45 directly and was possibly responsible for increased cancer incidence adding another 4-6,000 cancer deaths.
Should we discontinue hydroelectric power because all dams will eventually fail and may flood inhabited areas? Nuclear power is incredibly safe.
I'd much rather have close to 0 deaths from all of the above guaranteed, when catastrophe happens.
I'm aware that nuclear is probably the only thing that will solve the energy crisis. But I'm wary of the long term risks. Just like I would be with the dam.
Nuclear energy is currently not a massive part of our energy production.
depends where you are talking about, there's a lot of reactors in the world, plenty enough to do statistics.