Re: Historical Cost of Nukes
The construction of Fukushima was taxpayer-funded, as are effectively all nuclear power plants ever built anywhere. Yes, even the Americans.
Part of the justification of such funding has always been that research and experience would allow *future* plants to be built cheaper. For at least the first 30-35 years of commercial nuclear generation, that completely failed to happen - despite repeated promises that the designs would improve, each one cost more to build than its predecessor. It wasn't until the mid-80s that they started even to claim they'd got their arse into gear commercially. However, between TMI and Chernobyl, by this time they were PR poison, so that claim was never actually tested - because designs had to be remodelled *again* in the light of those disasters.
It's not clear to me why the same reasoning shouldn't apply to renewables now.
Square miles of land, worldwide, rendered uninhabitable or unusable by renewable power? Zero. Casualties arising from renewable power? Okay, some idiot falls off a roof while installing his solar panels - there are a few, but let me know when it begins to approach one Chernobyl. Requirement for expensive monitoring equipment, regulatory oversight or highly trained maintenance staff? None, slight and slim, respectively.
Sorry, Lewis, I get what you're saying, but by any reasonable measure solar, wind, wave and tidal power are vastly safer than nuclear.