current extreme drought in Europe is hopefully a rare occurrence

Oh boy, do I have news for you.

Airplanes don't have a bad rep, they are incredibly safe and if one occasionally crashes the death toll is generally limited to the passengers.

My issue with nuclear being presented as perfectly safe is that this is largely theoretical. In practice the list of nuclear and radiation accidents is quite long. If you dig a little into your deaths per terawatt-hour list you can find that they count 433 deaths from Chernobyl. The real death toll remains unknown, but ranges from the 30 officially reported by the Soviet government, the WHO estimate of 4000+, and the 35000 families receiving compensation for "owing to the loss of a breadwinner whose death was deemed to possibly related to the Chernobyl accident." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster)

My point is, each of these nuclear accidents has the potential to kill tens of thousands and cause long-term increases in cancers and birth defects. And despite all the safety claims, we see a major incident about once a decade.

Additionally, we still don't know where to store the nuclear waste and enriched uranium continues to bring cash to Russia, as we haven't been able to shake dependance there either.

All in all, nuclear is another fossil fuel that has risks we can't seem to manage properly and the price is much higher than most renewables. I'm not saying to shut all nuclear plants down immediately, especially if we then have to use coal or gas to make up for the loss in production. But let's stop praising it as this amazing alternative by making safety and sustainability claims that are based on propaganda numbers.

And the current extreme drought in Europe is hopefully a rare occurrence

aaahahahhahahahahahahahaahahahha

I do love your optimism, tho

One of the things that rarely get mentioned is the way uranium gets mined, almost always next to poor and marginalized people, leaving disease and unlivable places. Something that doesn't get included In the .gov stats ofcourse. (Ofcourse this is not just a nuclear thing) the way french companies completely ravage places in africa for uranium (and oil) is unacceptable. I'm fairly "meh" on nuclear energy, but it really icks me it is never mentioned.

E.g: french being french monsters exhibit 942331 and there's plenty of places like that, american navajo comes to mind too.

also weaponry

the current extreme drought in Europe is hopefully a rare occurrence

Lmao no it won't be, have you been hiding under a rock? You know the climate is completely fucked for us right? Western Europe is one of the fastest heating places even, within a decade or 2 everything south of paris will be just like extremadura.

now that I think about it, do floods have impact on reactor capacities? Like there is a lot more debris and shit in the water.

With renewables being branded as "woke" (or "western degeneracy" for the few people in Russia with access to Lemmy), political LLMs being rampant, misinformation being spread as efficient as never before, the industrial interest of certain nations to either sell their Uranium or being able to build nukes, Nuclear Power being kinda more clean than Coal, Gas and Oil at least (but hellishly expensive and water-gobbling like hell, which apparently most people didn't get the memo of), the price of refined oil products going through the roof, data centers making energy almost scarce…

I don't know what you're talking about, sounds like a great foundation for civilized discussions! 🥴

Also decentralised. Everyone can install some PV panels and a battery.

Possible. Though I'd wager there's also a lot of culture war and actual war involved (Russia sells both Oil and Uranium, Iran also sells Oil).

We should charge fossils for them, else we are just disadvantaging everything but fossil and nuclear.
Green doesn't get subsidies either and still competes on price with fossils, and it does not have home solar (except arguably residential solar in some places).
A CO₂ tax has been demanded by lots of organizations over the years, but in the EU (and I presume elsewhere) has been repeatedly obstructed by fossil lobyists.

consumes a colossal amount of resources [...] so it takes a huge amount of oil

Solar is the main source of interest, since it's gotten so cheap. And solar is fundamentally a thin slice of silicon with trace amounts of mystery elements. The entire thing can be made extremely thin, but it doesn't really matter. Because silicon is just fancy sand, and we have enough, it's not a concern. The trace amounts of mystery elements (dopants) are so minor they don't matter, regardless of what they are and how they are sourced. Then there are conductors and structural elements, for which you can use what is available. This would be say aluminum for contacts (though they are very thin so you can still use fancier elements), aluminum and epoxy for the frames and protective layers, ...
In sum solar has no problematic elements, and the amounts involved are minor on the scale of large construction projects.

Wind I want to say is similar. Mainly bulk construction materials like resin, concrete, steel. With some electrical components. The main difference is that here you have generators that might need a lot of copper. Though that is changing, I am not sure how far that is in the rollout but it won't a concern into the future. Generators won't need nearly as much copper in the future.

The only thing relevant for pollution, oil use, cost, supply, ... in the constituent resources are the batteries. If you put electric car batteries from 10 years ago into a box, you'll have a bad time.
Since then though, we've seen chemistries that make good lithium batteries without problematic elements like cobalt or nickel.
Making batteries that don't move lets you optimize things even further than for cars in that respect. The production for car vs grid batteries are now also separate due to that.
The main issue of current grid batteries is thus lithium. Which is environmentally problematic to refine, and is expensive, but is readily available and does not depend on oil to my knowledge. The existing production also does not emit enough CO₂ to matter in the ultimate CO₂/kWh numbers when those go into grid use for decades, especially under overprovisioning where you need less batteries per renewable power production to begin with.
And ofc there are many developments in battery tech. Lithium is not inherently necessary for all batteries, there will be alternate chemistries available not too far into the future.
If you are thinking of building a nuclear plant now, then you need to consider what batteries you would need to buy in 10 years when it would be done, not which batteries are available now. In 10 years I'd expect something like molten metal or iron batteries that don't have any even slightly problematic elements.

the fact that they require an enormous amount of space

Loosely about 0.1% of current agricultural land. Even if you don't want to build some solar farms in place of existing farms for various reasons, it's not that much compared to other large infrastructure like cities, roads, agriculture, so you can find mixed use situations where they fit well.
For example over parking spaces providing shade, on top of roofs where you don't usually see them, or on top of crops that benefit from the shade.

If you look at countries that have a few tens of percent of their grid on solar at present (often with gas turbines instead of batteries), there will of course be a few panels visible when you get around, but it isn't omnipresent.

the fact that we still don’t have even the beginnings of a storage solution capable of lasting more than a few hours

Overprovisioning. If you naively assume you build exactly as many solar panels as you need to average to the demand over the year, you get some very large numbers for storage. But given that solar is very cheap and batteries are expensive and problematic, there is no reason to do that. What you do in practice with both solar and wind, is you build more than you would need, enough so that under suboptimal production you still don't need to draw from storage. Wind turbines don't always spin when it's windy, especially very windy, since then they produce so much power all demands are fulfilled and the rest would overload the grid. For solar it's increasingly the same, you just can't tell.
Private micro-solar often has a maximum power it can send to the grid, and home solar installations are over-specced for that and can send the maximum for far more of the day. Simply because overspeccing is minor increase if cost compared to everything else so financially the best decision.

In short: The sun shines every few hours, you don't have to store seasonal power.

Batteries need to be included if you want to compare renewables to nuclear, yeah. Still by now they beat nuclear on price, including the batteries.
Hydro can be disregarded since it's usually already built, as you mentioned.

For solar and wind, especially solar, things have changed quite a bit. Of course mainly batteries just got a lot cheaper and better, but the power production got so ridiculously cheap that you can use over-provisioning. Meaning you build way more power than you'd need if you could store it, and them simply don't store it all. For example you build enough solar to supply average power for a rainy day in winter, and then only build batteries for the night, completely disregarding seasonal and weather-based storage.

Overprovisioning compared to naive numbers (still thrown around by lobyists) can save you like 80% of battery capacity.

And as a bonus you can run power-based industry (aluminum, hydrogen, titanium, ...) for free when you are otherwise not using the over-capacity, if you don't mind running the machinery on-demand.