The reactor in the article would have been completely unaffected by the events at Fukushima. In any case, my point is a different one: energy that's available

The reactor in the article would have been completely unaffected by the events at Fukushima. In any case, my point is a different one: energy that's available on demand is more valuable than energy that is not, and we should price it as such. If we don't, we end up doing things like backing up our wind/solar with fossil...which also doesn't have its externalities priced in.