It would be good if these risks were objectively valued, for example by insuring the plant against meltdown costs.
Total economic loss estimates for the Fukushima meltdown are 250-500 bn USD[1]. And if the wind had been slightly different those numbers would be a lot higher, as Tokyo real estate would be affected.
And that insurance should also cover human error, terrorism, natural disasters. Won't be cheap is my guess.
Which brings us to the biggest myth of all, that nuclear power is cheap when you don't externalise so many costs.
Total economic loss estimates for the Fukushima meltdown are 250-500 bn USD[1]. And if the wind had been slightly different those numbers would be a lot higher, as Tokyo real estate would be affected.
And that insurance should also cover human error, terrorism, natural disasters. Won't be cheap is my guess.
Which brings us to the biggest myth of all, that nuclear power is cheap when you don't externalise so many costs.
[1] http://www.psr.org/environment-and-health/environmental-heal...