NIMBY doesn't automatically imply poorest.

Regardless, I volunteer for the danger zone. The 99% worst case is merely evacuation, and expensive power plants pay for lots of nice thing with their taxes.

Also insurance is a perfectly viable way to spread out risk so that no group of people is disadvantaged.

The fact that you are not in NIMBY is possible, your arguments, albeit debatable (no insurance company offers any policy related to large-scale nuke risk), are acceptable, but nonetheless you sit in a tiny minority thinking this way. AFAIK everywhere the majority is stuck in NIMBY mode.

If you were going to make a thousand power plants, I bet you could easily create such an insurance.

But people are always going to be unrealistic about risk. So I dunno, ask people if they accept a tiny chance of localized disaster, and then ignore everything they say about their own location.

The poorest in the world are most exposed to the risks of climate change.

Building out nuclear power in developed countries would mean the globally wealthy assuming a fairer measure of the risks associated with their consumption.