For example, a single terrorist nuclear incident would probably result in marshal law within the US, an escalation of our military, and a massive retrenchment of the world economy. Even if this as a 1% chance, the cost is so great that one must account for it. One percent of 100 trillion dollars in cumulative loss over the ensuing 50 years (not even accounting for loss of life) is $1T.
I think that you overstate the effect and the chance, but yes, this is indeed a cost that needs to be taken into account. However, what we are comparing to is coal-fired power plants. These also do massive damage - it is just less obvious. I won't try to put a number on it, but greenhouse effects could easily cause a loss of well over 1% of GDP even in a moderately bad scenario. I don't want to think about worst cast. Then there's the mining, particle pollution and mercury that coal has to deal with.
Further, nuclear energy economic models assume centralized power generation. That is a poor approach, an industrial age approach. We need to get away from that and move power generation closer to where power is used.
Yes, decentralized generation can be good when it works, but why do we need it? You say yourself that high-voltage transmission is very efficient, so why?
I don't feel that nuclear is a choice. It is too dangerous. In my opinion, it needs to be off the table as an option. If it did not exist, we would find a way and we would be fine.
I don't feel that coal is a choice. It is too dangerous. In my opinion, it needs to be off the table as an option. If it did not exist, we would find a way and we would be fine.
It would be great if solar and wind could produce all our power requirements and maybe one day they will, but I feel that that's a long time away and if that leaves us with a choice between coal and nuclear then I'd definitely support the nuclear option.