I know my view on this is very different, and in particular different to that of @LancedDendrite and others here, but Nuclear is un-insurable.Wrong.
I did a lot of reading on this after the last time it was debated here, lots of reports on the studies into the effects of Chernobyl. All the people adversely affected by Fukushima will not be properly compensated, even the Japanese can't afford that. On this basis alone, Nuclear is too expensive. If these costs were properly accounted for and attributed to the generators, every nuclear plant in the world would be shut down tomorrow (IMHO obviously).Did you bother to read the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) reports on both accidents? Chernobyl was just about the worst case scenario for a commercial nuclear reactor accident; its impact was no worse than many large scale petrochemical industrial accidents that riddle 20th century history. The only thing that made it special was that it was a radionuclide release instead of a boring old toxic chemical cloud.
And Fukushima? The adverse impacts to residents were from the massive tsunami that hit Fukushima Prefecture and from the large scale, unnecessary evacuation that followed the events at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. Cancer rates haven't changed and aren't likely to for any exposed cohort, including the plant workers.
In my view, the environmental risks associated with Nuclear dwarf the worst climate change has to offer by continued unrestrained use of coal.Yeah, coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef is no big deal. Neither is most of Bangladesh going underwater, or glaciers melting...
Fact is, the whole world needs to stop burning coal immediately. We need every tool available to achieve that task and nuclear energy is one of them.
And then there are security concerns. I'm sure many countries have nuclear reactors as much as a strategic defence asset than any other reason. In my view, the mere presence of a nuclear industry increases the risks of industy's by-products being deliberately mis-used, either by state or non-state players. The fact it hasn't happened since 1945 really shouldn't give anyone any comfort. Longer term, the extra cost of securing the waste, securing the state against the threat of the industry being mis-used, all dwarf the worst of the environmental and economic risks. If it were up to me, there would be a world wide ban on all fissile material. We'd allow the existing power reactors to serve out their economic lives, we'd use them to destroy all the world's weaponised fissile material, render all of the accumulated waste as harmless as possible, and then completely shut down the entire industry.Here's an uncomfortable fact for you: just about every nation in the world that wants to build a nuclear weapon can build one. The genie has left the bottle. And worse still, they don't need a nuclear power station to help do that. Just look at North Korea's programme.
Most nations that elect to use nuclear power also don't elect to acquire nuclear weapons.
I could start talking about proliferation resistance in the modern nuclear supply chain but I don't think you'd either care enough or believe me.