upvote
Are you rhetorically or actually asking? I'd guess significantly lower than coal and gas, and in the ballpark of (but still higher than) solar and wind combined (in the expected value, i.e. probability of a Chernobyl-like disaster times the death toll of that).
reply
No member of the public has died from civilian nuclear power in the US. Significantly more people have died installing solar panels by falling off of roofs.
reply
That's why I mentioned expected values. Historical data alone is too sparse.

I don't doubt that that resulting number is still very low, or there (being intentionally optimistic about politics and society here) wouldn't be any nuclear plants.

Especially long-term storage is tricky, and if you need to consider time horizons of millenia, even small risks add up.

> Significantly more people have died installing solar panels by falling off of roofs.

In fairness, you then also have to consider "regular" industrial accidents at nuclear plants, which are probably still much lower (due to the presumably much higher energy output per employee hour than other forms). But that's besides the larger point of low probability and historical risk.

reply
Tiring with arbitrary limitations to exclude major accidents of a fleet in the hundreds.

The difference between renewables and nuclear power is who gets harmed.

When dealing with nuclear accidents entire populations are forced into life changing evacuations, if all goes well.

For renewables the only harm that comes are for the people who has chosen to work in the industry. And the workplace hazards are the same as any other industry working with heavy things and electric equipment.

reply