> Those are constant dollars. Are you claiming that the real cost of labour went up 4- to 8-fold in the nuclear industry?

I'm not saying that is the only effect. But if you want to blame "onerous regulations" for nuclear power being so expensive, then you have to at least put bounds on other factors driving cost (and you also have to show those relaxed regulations would not have led to a significant amount of additional incidents; the current rate of 2 meltdowns for ~500ish reactor sites is already problematic enough).

I personally think that collective standards regarding risk and pollution have risen significantly since the early days of nuclear power, and a lot of things that were done back then would be considered unacceptably reckless/negligient nowadays (=> Hanford became a superfund site for a reason), so claiming that those historical costs are repeatable seems very dubious in the first place to me.

Ok, so say they don't evacuate the city. What is the actual risk here that we're talking about?

> I'm not saying that is the only effect.

What other effect are you considering? The materials aren't getting that more expensive and the labour will cost similar too. There aren't a lot of options left apart from regulatory changes.

> I personally think that collective standards regarding risk and pollution have risen significantly...

Then do you potentially think that the reason the price is rising is because of regulation? Because this whole paragraph reads like a justification for the costs incurred due to regulation. I'm not seeing what your complaint is here pinning the inverted learning curve on the regulators - you seem to be saying that is what happened and it is reasonable in this paragraph.

The risk is that hundreds of people avoidably die of cancer over the following decades, and that you lose an immense amount of trust and credibility in government. This is not easy to de-risk because there are a lot of potential mechanisms for bio-accumulation/concentration, and by the time you find out what those exact mechanisms are empirically, the damage might already be done (and by then its too late, and people are no longer gonna trust anything you tell them).

I'm not arguing that the Fukushima evacuation was 100% the right call to make even in hindsight, but it was most certainly a defensible position (even in retrospect).

> Then do you potentially think that the reason the price is rising is because of regulation?

Strongly disagree with the framing. My opinion is that most early reactors did not meet modern safety/pollution expectations and quite frequently resulted in a toxic mess that still requires cleanup today (Sellafield would be a non-US example).

Despite all regulations, the safety track record (2 meltdowns at 500ish reactor sites) is arguably really poor, especially when reactor meltdowns had been portrayed as "virtually impossible" by early proponents.

> What other effect are you considering?

The very same effects that make bespoke heavy machinery comparatively expensive nowadays in general:

- Low benefit from industrial automation

- Mechanical engineering sectors have shrunk in the west (=> parts/subassemblies and qualified labor more expensive)

- Generally higher wages

Those apply much less to renewables because those are less labor intensive and benefit from economies of scale more (by design). Its also much easier to benefit from cheap foreign labor with those (especially solar).

As a sanity check:

I would always expect coal power plants to stay significantly cheaper than nuclear power (when disregarding CO2/fuel cost). But even in that setting, modern coal power (just like nuclear power) already struggles to compete with solar/wind on levelized cost basis today (and trends are very clear!)

So even if we dropped all nuclear regulation today completely (with disastrous likely effects) then the absolute best we could hope for would be to get competitive (on levelized cost) with the most expensive forms of renewables (offshore wind and rooftop solar). Given that it would likely take decades to act on such a plan, all the risks (and current downward trends on renewables and storage costs) chasing that approach seems utterly pointless to me.

Thus I believe the current nuclear approach (build a few reactors here and there so the know-how is not lost completely), which is exactly what both China and the US are doing, is perfectly sensible.

For long-term displacement, many people (mostly sick and elderly) died at an increased rate while in temporary housing and shelters. Degraded living conditions and separation from support networks are likely contributing factors. As of 27 February 2017, the Fukushima prefecture government counted 2,129 "disaster-related deaths" in the prefecture. This value exceeds the number that have died in Fukushima prefecture directly from the earthquake and tsunami. .... As of the year 2016, among those deaths, 1,368 have been listed as "related to the nuclear power plant" according to media analysis

~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident_cas...

Do you actually mean 100s over decades? Given that the evacuations from Fukushima caused thousands (well, thousand - but we're talking the highest hundreds before we get to thousands) of deaths in years, it seems like the risk of nuclear meltdowns would be completely acceptable. The government forced people to accept higher risk because bureaucrats panicked and it seems that was acceptable. What is the problem with a meltdown supposed to be if more damage is done just for theatre?

You're proposing people respond to a threat that isn't really there. Hundreds of people routinely die over decades from all sorts of industrial processes. A once in a generation risk that somewhere on the globe will suffer, maybe, 100s of deaths over the course of a few decades is nothing. Coal is still worse, is everywhere and people accept that. Is this the limit of the damage you're worried about?