Latest estimates by TEPCO for cleaning up the Fukushima Daiichi plant run up to
1000bn Yen, or $126bn. Several thousand people were evacuated, with unclear perspective to return to their homes. Eating produce from the soil or fish from the seas around Sendai is discouraged. I wonder how you call that cheap and safe.
He did not call it "cheap and safe". He wrote "cheapest and safest". The difference is enormous, "cheapest and safest" indicates that there are risks and costs, but that these are lower than those of the alternatives. "Cheap and safe" is an unrealistic absolute, and unfortunately no such technology exists. You need to ask "how cheap and how safe", and compare the alternatives.
The cost you qoute and the decision to return the evacuees are completely dependent on what level of radioactivity is considered safe. The fact is that no rigorous scientific study has ever been able to link chronic radiation exposures below 100 mSv per year to loss of health or life, despite huge effort by many different teams, over a sixty year time period. The evacuations at both Fukushima and Chernobyl were based on an assumption called "The linear no-threshold model" (LNT) which has zero factual basis. The reality is that how the dose-response curve looks below 100 mSv/year remains unknown, and many well respected scientists in the field of radiobiology consider the linear no-threshold hypothesis unlikely to be true, or even falsified. See for example "Radiation and Reason" by professor Wade Allison.
Let's assume the LNT is valid anyway. Radiation safety must be seen in relation to other safety standards. Protecting the public to the fullest possible extent from danger A, while dangers B and C are routinely causing loss of health or life orders of magnitude larger makes no sense. As an example, consumption of wild freshwater fish larger than 1 kg is officially restricted in Norway because of high mercury content due to pollution from coal power, primarily from the UK, Denmark and Germany. Mercury is extremely toxic and stays in the environment forever. The dose-response of mercury is well known, and indicate that intake of freshwater fish should be limited to once per month with a total ban for pregnant women. Recent studies indicate that fish as small as 200g are poisonous. This means that pollution from coal power has made unfit for human consumption an entire class of healthy food that has been a part of Norwegian diet since the ice age. This situation is
far, far worse than the situation that prompted evacuation at Fukushima and even Chernobyl! I haven't even mentioned particles, uranium emissions, arsenic, strip mining, waste volume or CO[sub]2[/sub].
How do you propose getting rid of coal and nuclear at the same time? Natural gas also produces far too much CO[sub]2[/sub], let's eliminate that too.
Scenario: Winter in Europe. Long nights and cloud cover has cut solar output to 7% of nominal. As often happens in the winter, there is no wind and there hasn't been any for a week anywhere in Europe. Another week of still air is forecast. Average wind production is below 10%. This is a realistic scenario, it's happened before and it will happen again. Germany needs around 12 TWh per week, more in the winter.
How do you propose generating the missing 20 TWh during those two weeks, and at what cost?