How true.

Sure, a NPP can be build totally safe - btw something the nuclear energy industry claims all the time - and all occured incidents are not based upon the concept of the plant but on human error, costs savings, wrong materials etc....

Yes, the problem is the "etc".

And for the fuel processing/reprocessing: some may think it just "shovel some ore in a tube" but it isn't. This chemical process produces high problematic nuclear and chemical waste, which is (in history) sometimes handled not as intended. Economic pressure makes many things possible - things you even want not dream in a nightmare about.

And for the safety: "A NPP would survive a crash of a fighter jet.". That's true. The impact of a jet engine won't scratch the hull. But also the WTC might have survived the crash of a fighter jet - but it collapsed due to the heat of tons of burning fuel from a Boeing 767...
As I know, most NPPs are not able to withstand a WTC-scenario.

Yes, are specified to withstand an earthquake. The specifications says, that a plant has to withstand an earthquake with the magnitude of the biggest earthquake of the last *100* years in that area. Ask a geologist, if he can sleep well with that. Btw: just research about leakages in Japanese NPPs after earthquakes... and the Japanese really should know about earthquake resisting structures (which they do know, of course! But economical reasons... you know...).

A NNP is the dream of an engineer - I know it, because I was an engineer in the nuclear industry some years ago - but IMHO it is not an ordinary mass product for the dailly use. (Don't tell me about "new" reactor concepts - I know them and most aren't new.)

NPPs are also the dream of the energy industry, because it consolidates the concept of centralized energy supply - which means profit.

If you dream the dream of unlimited cheap energy then nuclear power is not the solution, because it is risky and not cheap. You better wake up: energy is an expensive resource.