Well there is a difference between marketing and physics

i mean, the titanic was also definitionally, not unsinkable, they just called it that.

100% minus the energy requirements of AI 🫠

Uninhabitable? Most of the evacuations were unnecessary, and there would have been less loss-of-life if most people sheltered in-place. In the year following the event, nearby residents received less than 20% of lifetime natural background radiation, about 2 chest CT scans, or a bit more than an airline crew, and less than a heavy smoker.

As for waste, dry casks are plenty good. The material is glassified, so it can't leach into ground water, and the concrete casing means you get less radiation by sitting next to one, as even natural background radiation is partially blocked. Casks are also dense enough for on-site storage, needing only a small lot to store the lifetime fuel use of any plant. A pro and a con of this method is that the fuel is difficult to retrieve from the glass, which is bad for fuel reprocessing, but good for preventing easy weapons manufacturing.

Meanwhile, coal pollution kills some 8 million people annually, and because the grid is already set up for it, when nuclear plants close they are replaced with coal or oil plants.

Upgrading the grid is expensive, and large-scale storage is difficult, and often untested. Pumped hydro is great for those places that can manage it, but the needed storage is far greater, and in locations without damable areas. Not only would unprecidented storage be necessary, but also a grid that's capable of moving energy between multiple focus points, instead of simply out of a plant. These aren't impossible challenges, but the solutions aren't here yet, and nuclear can fill the gap between decommissioning fossil fuels and effective baseline storage.

Solar and Wind don't have the best disposal record either, with more efficient PV cells needing more exotic resources, and the simple bulk of wind turbines making them difficult to dispose of. And batteries are famously toxic and/or explosive. Once again, these challenges have solutions, but they aren't mature and countries will stick with proven methods untill they are. That means more fossil fuels killing more people unnecessary. Nuclear can save those people today, and then allow renewable grids to be built when they are ready.

I heard that Fukushima was problematic because non-engineers thought it would be easier cheaper?)

fukushima was problematic because literally everything in the chain of safety that should've happened, either didn't or was ignored, due to callous stupidity.

If literally any one thing had gone differently, there's a good chance it wouldn't have been that bad.

that is believable, no structures should have been where fukushima was nor with the lacking tsunami protections it had.

Critical? Yes but there are a few different kinds of critical. Critical to the power supply? Ofc. Critical as in potential environmental disaster? Some, dams are 1 example.

Sometimes transportation is the cause of the potential of an environmental disaster like gas pipes. Those are a potential wildfire. Tbh, badly maintained high voltage over the ground wires have caused huge disaster too.

Energy is dangerous by nature. But some are more abusable and have longer term consequences than others. In a war setting, you have to assume abuse and plan with the consequences in mind.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Plant_crisis it is a reality.

Which is why both technologies need to be abolished asap and replaced with cheaper and sustainable renewable energies.

There are plenty of projects with similar risks in other fields all the time.

Then name three examples please, that have a Chernobyl level of risk.