If I said I'd invented a new technology that would have less deaths per Terawatt than Nuclear, what would your first question be?

I'm going to guess it was "how much does it cost"?

Because we all instinctively know that human life is precious but not priceless. even if we're not familiar with the economic scoring that's done on new projects that might save or cost lives.

If nuclear costs so much that we could save more lives by spending that money on something else, then it's not a good deal. Different people might die, but overall less people will die.

I know nuclear fans are a bit emotional and don't like dealing with hard facts and figures. The thought of a single person dying is too much for them to cope with and they can't make logical decisions as a result, but think about it for a while and you'll see that expensive but safe power isn't particularly helpful if there's much cheaper alternatives with only slightly higher death rates.

Plus I think solar and wind are actually safer than nuclear now, but even if they weren't, their cost would probably still edge it.