Look, Im not trying to say nuclear energy is unefficient. Im saying it does have many dangers. Which I think has been proven already by this event. And Im not denying that fossil fuel has its dangers (what doesnt?) but I thought it was unfair that you said the dangers dont exist, when they clearly do now. On the matter of nuclear energy vs fossil fuel, Id definitely go for nuclear energy. Yet those 2 arent the only ones in the discussion, so dont compare just those 2.

And I'm trying to explain to you that Nuclear energy is just as safe as fossil fuel energy. Not to mention the huge ecological disasters that acquiring fossil fuels frequently causes.

This event simply proves that there are 'some dangers', but there are some dangers with absolutely every method of generating power. Nuclear is no worse than fossil fuels. What I said doesn't exist is the risk of a Chernobyl style disaster.

As for not comparing fossils and nuclear? I have mentioned renewable energy sources such as hydroelectricity. The issue is that they only create a tiny fraction of the world's power, they are simply not a viable source of power.