All nuclear related fatalities are due to radiation exposure, and the immediate deaths are rather small numbers, with the lingering effects of the fallout (i.e. cancer) only pushing the numbers into the 10's of thousands.
These misconceptions help nobody.
In a world where nuclear weapons are a thing and the public is generally aware of their horrific effects, the distinction between a meltdown and a 'nuclear explosion' is not semantics.
I now live in Bay Area (very sunny place) and have solar on my house. Problem is that it covers at best 40% of my family’s (4 people) energy needs
That has always been the mantra and always will.
I'm certainly opposed to God forbids opening new nuclear plants, but I'm also opposed to closing existing ones, those are different arguments and should be treated as such. Nuclear fission is a relic of early 50's, but we already paid the co2 cost of building said plants, therefore should continue operating to reduce further damage to the biosphere by releasing more co2/methane. But we don't need to build new nuclear plants, as they are overly expensive and the safer you try to make them the more expensive they get, not to mention that they take a huge amount of time to actually get built and in the meantime release ungodly amounts of co2 with the colossal amounts of steel and concrete needed for the construction, a co2 budget that will take a long time to be recovered
I coughed up the money to go as solar as I can, (heat pumps, electric vehicles, ect,) but my state's financing had its limits; and then Mother Nature sent me an unusually cloudy April. I'm probably going to be somewhere between 70-85% solar after I have a few years of data.
Anyway, when it comes to reducing CO2, celebrate the partial victories. Rooftop solar can take a huge dent in emissions, but it's not a complete solution. There is no silver bullet for this problem.
A nuclear advocate will tell you that on a per-MW basis nuclear is safer from a "death from radiation" POV because your installer may fall off a roof or you might get knocked on the head by a loose panel. Conveniently, these "death per-MV" claims exclude the construction of the nuclear plants, the potentially thousands of years of waste containment and human labor associated with it.
You also need to price risk higher with nuclear because safety depends heavily on competent administration. That's expensive, and human failure is very common.
End of the day, the economics of nuclear are the problem. We would be building nuclear if they made money. In my state, nuclear plants need direct government subsidy (to the tune of billions) as they are unable to sell their electricity at a rate that sustains the plant. The capital costs are extreme and the plant needs to operate at capacity to work financially.