This is the reason there has to be a cap for nuclear power to exist, but not the reason the cap has to be so small. $375 mil is nothing in the context of cleanu

This is the reason there has to be a cap for nuclear power to exist, but not the reason the cap has to be so small. $375 mil is nothing in the context of cleanup costs. On the whole I would find the advocates of nuclear energy safety a lot more convincing if they put their entire fortunes on the line. I would like to see guaranteed financial ruin for any of the executives involved in a potential Fukushima and shareholders totally wiped out. That still wouldn't put much of a dent in cleanup costs, but it would prevent moral hazard somewhat. This subsidy also never shows up on any models comparing solar, coal and nuclear. Similarly neither does global warming induced environmental catastrophe. BECAUSE you simply can't put a $ price on the likelihood of these events occurring or their cost they (the OP modelers) just ignore the tail risk. Anybody who remembers the events of the financial crisis should find that pattern disturbingly familiar. But, doing so is useful if you're shilling for natural gas/nuclear energy - just as assuming away financial tail risk was useful for executives at AIG.