Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cheap until it isn't. I wonder what has been the actual cost per kWh of nuclear power in Japan once factored in the price of Fukushima's disaster (between 200 and 600 billion dollars).
The cost you cite sounds more like the cost of the earthquake and tsunami, rather than the Daiichi reactor meltdown cost. Even if it were, in the time limit safety increases, such costs decrease, more so with more development. More broadly, nuclear looks expensive not because it's unproductive — but because standard asset pricing discounts its most valuable feature: time. Dense, stable power for centuries gives a low…
I'm not against nuclear energy in principle, it just seems to be a technology that instead of becoming cheaper becomes more expensive, has enormous costs beyond energy production (decommissioning, waste management) and is subject to extremely rare failures that threaten to evaporate any gain in the previous decades or centuries. I don't even think it's that dangerous for people- victims of Chernobyl and Fukushima have been a tiny number. It just seems economically not worth it.