The psychology of nuclear energy

If nuclear energy is such a good idea for humanity and the world (environment-wise, climate-wise, energy-wise), then why isn't it more widely accepted?  Why is there so much reluctance?

Despite the accidents (stupid stupid stupid operators at Chernobyl, a stupendous tsunami, and occasional leaks), it's safe.  REALLY safe.  Put in climate context, it's even safer in the long-term than fossil fuel energy production.

So why not nuclear?

This article goes a way toward addressing that.  It's good.

Why are we so afraid of nuclear?

Some ideas from the article:

A.  "Fear of radiation is an obvious candidate. Dr. Spencer Weart traced how the fear of nuclear is much more complicated and much older than nuclear weapons or nuclear energy, starting from the beginning of modern science and technological societies in the late 1800s. While we presently think of radiation as a subset of the nuclear age, it was the concept of radiation that came first."

B. "Later, with the dropping of the first atomic bomb on Japan, nuclear came to be associated with the ultimate end member of this dark side to technology. ... That the many firebombing campaigns during World War II released over 10 times more energy than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined is not relevant to this meme. The idea that so small an amount of mass could release so large an amount of energy captivated the mind and enshrined nuclear as the ultimate power, and thus, the ultimate seduction in these mythologies to those who would wield it."

But here's where I thought it got really good -- and made sense.

"Our first trials with nuclear energy over the last 50 years proved that nuclear is the safest and most efficient of all energy sources, from both the human health and environmental perspectives. To produce a trillion killowatt-hours of electricity, nuclear takes less land, uses less steel and concrete, kills fewer people and has less harmful emissions than any other energy source, including wind and solar.

But this experience has not yet infused the meme of global energy sufficiently to move nuclear power to the forefront of the energy sources we need to embrace as a species in order to save the planet. Renewables, new generation nuclear, low carbon sources, efficiency and environmental protection all need to be incorporated into the meme of a safe, reliable and sustainable energy future."

Right.  That makes GREAT sense.

Why can't we therefore be more sensible about nuclear energy - and why we (collectively) need it?