A classic irrational antinuke argument. You don't "decommission" perfectly serviceable & licensed carbon-free generation capacity - that's stupid. You refurbish & re-commission them with SGRs and reactor replacement programs - INDEFINITELY.<quoted text>
And every source I've read (not connected to the nuclear industry), says it will cost more to decommission them (even inflation adjusted) than it did to bring them on line.
The latest word I heard about Fukishima was that it would take thirty years to clean it completely up.
How cheap is that?
The extremely rare outlier like Fukushima is all included in the economics, via insurance, self-insurance, and capital renewal/replaceent reserves, and still advanced nuclear costs out FAR less costly than Solar and competitive with other modes. However impressive the cost figures might appear for the isolated rare once-a-generation event like Fukushima (or the BP well blowout), in the grand scheme of things, as a % of total capital maintenance & renewal costs, they're close to immaterial.
"Not connected to the nuclear idustry" too often = half-informed, ideologically biased, and unqualified to comment on technical matters. Caveat emptor.