This is largely due to the abstract nature of fossil fuel deaths. With the exception of an oil spill these take place over large areas and over longer periods of time. Whereas nuclear accidents are localized both geographically and temporally, even if their death rates (or even death per energy rate) is magnitudes below that of other sources.
What I think needs to happen is that these technologies need to be put on even playing fields. Nuclear has most of its costs built in: decommissioning, health, storage, etc. But a carbon tax and environmental health tax would largely put technologies on at least an even playing ground. These issues are essentially a tragedy of the commons issue, where we share resources. There's an economic cost to polluting a lake and if that is not built in to the market then it isn't fair or helpful to the population. We can argue about free markets and stuff, but this makes it more free as certain sectors can't skirt by this and it is unreasonable to expect the population to be well informed (nobody can be an expert in nuclear physics, coal, oil, solar, electrodynamics, mechanical engineering, hydrology, etc, the burden is too high). A major problem is that many sectors are getting major discounts because their costs are much harder to see. It isn't only "first order" costs that matter, especially when second and third order are so expensive (i.e. climate and health). I'm not saying we should reduce scrutiny of nuclear, but rather that the other technologies deserve the same level.
What I think needs to happen is that these technologies need to be put on even playing fields. Nuclear has most of its costs built in: decommissioning, health, storage, etc. But a carbon tax and environmental health tax would largely put technologies on at least an even playing ground. These issues are essentially a tragedy of the commons issue, where we share resources. There's an economic cost to polluting a lake and if that is not built in to the market then it isn't fair or helpful to the population. We can argue about free markets and stuff, but this makes it more free as certain sectors can't skirt by this and it is unreasonable to expect the population to be well informed (nobody can be an expert in nuclear physics, coal, oil, solar, electrodynamics, mechanical engineering, hydrology, etc, the burden is too high). A major problem is that many sectors are getting major discounts because their costs are much harder to see. It isn't only "first order" costs that matter, especially when second and third order are so expensive (i.e. climate and health). I'm not saying we should reduce scrutiny of nuclear, but rather that the other technologies deserve the same level.