That's now how insurance works. They look at the potential risk, and as Fukushima demonstrated that potential (in monetary terms) is rather high. Sorry, but if you irradiate someone's property and make it worthless, or destroy their business and livelihood, you have to compensate them.
The cost of compensating them multiplied by the frequency of such an occurrence would be FAR, FAR, FAR, less than the rate. The cost of occurrence is high, but the frequency of the occurrence is more than low enough to compensate. Ruin theory is THE ONLY THING AT PLAY HERE. I also want to point out that Fukushima was caused by a natural disaster that ALREADY MADE A SHITLOAD OF PROPERTY WORTHLESS.
That's not an imposed cost, that's how society works.
The fact that we require nuclear to be so much more profitable to society (AND IT IS) demonstrates that IS an imposed cost.
Only if the premiums made the energy produced ridiculously expensive.
Look up the number of Terawatts produced by nuclear reactors built in the last 30 years. Then look at the damage to life and property caused by nuclear reactors built in the last 30 years. Report your findings. This study has been done a thousand times and your just flat out wrong.
Keep in mind that the UK has already had to guarantee above market rate prices.
Only if "above market" means greater than the price of fossil fuels MINUS the externalized cost of their damages to human health and the environment.
As for all your other stuff about renewables, you make the classic mistake of considering a single type or single generator on its own. Sure, a particular wind farm may not produce the same amount of energy all year round, but over the entire country there is always a base load of wind energy.
Show me one fucking example of a geographical region that has achieved this. The mythical "composite base load" is just that. A myth. Even in theory, it requires natural gas to provide feedback-based stabilization (meaning you need a smart grid in the first place). The end game for such schemes is that we invest a shitload of money in the short-term on a precisely calculated ratio of wind to solar and sparse energy storage with gas-powered stabilization, and invest a shitload of money in the long-term on dense energy storage. Either way, it is not even close to economical.
Storage systems are already viable, such as the 50MW batteries they have deployed in Japan
with fewer government subsidies than nuclear AT PRESENT TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT, of course
Germany isn't even half way through it's transitional period yet, and has already made incredible progress.
France is still innovating too. And they are WAY farther along. I'd say they are pretty much DONE with their transition already!
there is plenty of money being invested in new renewable energy sources, but very little in nuclear
Ruin theory. It's a thing.