I think that's by broad policy and not by individual risk mitigation. Isn't it something like "if nuclear is cheaper than the average then it has to spend the difference on risk mitigation"?
Not really what I’m talking about. There’s quite a lot spent to avoid known failures and little way to know what the minimum they can get away with.
3 mile island wasn’t a public health hazard but lack of maintenance cost billions by destroying the reactor. Thus prompting the industry to spend significantly more money on maintaining reactors. The problem is it’s really difficult to determine what’s overkill here.
There’s something like 600,000 US bridges and sometimes people look a failure and say it’s rare enough not to be worth doing anything about.
I think that's by broad policy and not by individual risk mitigation. Isn't it something like "if nuclear is cheaper than the average then it has to spend the difference on risk mitigation"?