E_x_B

Extreme risk aversion is costly and probably causes on average more damage to the people than operating based on a realistic risk assessment. Problem is the out of proportion fear of ionizing radiation fuelled by the campaigns of the various Green movements.

I am pro nuclear power due to the fact that producing the same amount of energy using coal power causes more loss of human lives. This has been true even when comparing just the real radiation exposure from the fly ash of an operating coal powered plant and the maximum allowed radiation exposure from a nuclear power plant. It is still true when comparing the loss of lives per produced energy when both the Chernobyl accident and the Fukushima accident are accounted for.

It is not. And the total cost of 6+5 billion euros for the nuclear power plant is not cheap.

Due to the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents any nuclear power projects today are always an uphill battle with the increasingly difficult to fulfill regulations. At the same time there will be strong political pressures from outside sources like Greenpeace.

If the safety regulations for cars were as stringent with respect to the risks involved there would be no cars at all. Even walking on the streets would be forbidden without using a helmet.

It has a lot to do with the regulations and probably more to do with the fact that in Finland they require the regulations actually to be fulfilled. This was written in the contract and Areva-Siemens was aware of the requirements at the time of the signing. They gambled and lost.

Interestingly the City of Helsinki is now considering compact nuclear reactors as a replacement for the energy source required for district heating.

https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12098463 (in Finnish only)

Currently they are running on coal which is to be replaced by a bio fuel (wood chips) based power plant by year 2024. Many are not happy about the projected increase of traffic from trucks bringing in the bio fuel. The nuclear option will not happen due to too many diehard Green party voters in Helsinki but it is a sign of the times. Even the Green party in Finland is at least partly supportive to nuclear power.

Russia probably does not count as being a part of the civilized world. Even Finland is a questionable case due to the polar bears walking all over the streets of the capital Hell-sinkit.

In Finland, brought from Areva-Siemens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#...

Total cost to owner (TVO) for this 1600 MW EPR will be little less than 6 billion euros and the rest of the cost (5 billion euros) will be paid by Areva i.e. French citizens as taxes. Building of the plant started 2005 and after the latest delays the reactor is supposed to go critical for the first time during January 2022. It was supposed to be ready during 2010.

As you can see: Cheap and fast to build.

Areva figured that this was an easy way to open the European nuclear power plant markets after the political damage to the industry due to Chernobyl. They did not take into account the fact that a lot of the professionals required were already retired and at the same time the safety regulations were much tighter than before.