Though BP has shelled out a lot more than $75 million. And they are actually able to. Different situation for nuclear energy companies.
The $75 million cap does only apply to the economic impact to any disaster (lost jobs, business, property, etc). The companies are still on the hook for direct cleanup cost which is what BP has mostly paid to date (although typically the direct cleanup costs are the smaller part of any large scale disaster). BP has said they will cover all economic losses as well but it remains to be seen how truthful this is as the costs pile up (there's also the issue of the cap being removed if gross negligence can be proven....)
Let one of the French nuclear power plants go boom and the effects are a _lot_ worse.
Could be. I'm not familiar with French nuclear reactor design. I am however familiar with Canadian CANDU reactors and can say with some certainty they are much safer than most (use unenriched fuel, require heavy water moderation, vacuum building, etc...). Not to say a CANDU accident wouldn't be bad but it would certainly be better than, say, Chernobyl. The point I'm trying to make is nuclear reactors can be built safer. Newer designs, like pebble bed reactors, can not melt down by design. If there wasn't such fear mongering about nuclear energy we could invest in and build these safer reactors. Instead we're stuck with many aging reactors with suspect safety records.
Also, Africa has had an oil spill of similar size for ages and no one would think of starting to stop it as it's apparently not cost-efficient. And that is on land. Where people live. Not hidden under water by ways of chemicals.
Not entirely sure how this helps your argument against nuclear energy. It just goes to show again that oil can be just as damaging as nuclear.
Wrong. It's easy to process CO_2 into O_2 and C_x. It's just not economically feasible.
Yes, you can scrub, sequester, and convert fossil fuel emissions but as you stated it's not economically feasible. Recycling nuclear waste is economically feasible. They already do it in France and Britain. They don't do it in North America for political reasons (not technical or economic reasons).
I prefer to pay for my stuff in a way that makes sure the ones getting rich from what I pay have to shoulder the costs, as well. Not that I pay them _and_ pay extra for clean-up.
And this is my issue with how people think about fossil fuels. We are shouldering the burden of using them. For example increased smog causes more health issues which places extra burden health care which we all end up paying for with taxes (well, outside the US at least). So in truth, we are paying them and paying extra for the clean-up (just in different ways). At least with nuclear energy the problem is fairly well contained and solutions do exist (admittedly some better than others).