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