Electric vs Nuclear

For an engineer it is much easier to deal with even most complex technical problems than with inconsequencies of human nature. Let say that the Client wishes to have energy, cheap and a-plenty, but absolutely no pollution.

Okay: take a nuclear power plant and build it fully underground, in decomissioned mine 1000 m deep- under ground waters, behind airtight concrete seals ,only power cable and heat pipe outside. Costs slightly more, but no chance for second Chernobyl; any conceivable reason for a surface-reaching GAU would have to be a high-energy source (like new volcano or meteor penetrating 1000 m earth-shield) which would carry more destructive energy than the GAU itself , a logic loop. By carefull planning even fuel for 50 years autonomical operation could be provided.

But nuclear energy evokes panic , irrational angst among population, no matter how far or deep it would be. Average consumer , aka "Otto Normalverbraucher" sits at home or office, in front of TV or PC , surrounded by kilometers of fast-pulsating EM-cables and worries about potential risk of alpha, beta or gamma radiation from isotopes emitted by nuclear power plant a hundred kilometer away. Yes, they are all very dangerous, no word about it. Since early days of nuclear power radiologists do a lot of research to assess additive and cumulative effects of long-term small doses on humans, with various results.

Our Otto , if well educated, presumably knows that gamma emmission is also EM like the one produced by electricity , only high-energy; but on the other hand requires immediate proximity of the emiter. Alpha and beta emitters would need to be inhaled or ingested to be dangerous - which is by far less likely than eating poisonous chemicals with junk food.

No amount of engineering can solve this soul dilemma - rather "soft" arts as poetry, literature , philosophy...