Although this discussion contains some interesting points, it seems to decide prematurely that the need for government compensation is limited to only Fukushima prefecture's agricultural crops and ignore other possibility of compensation, such as seafood contamination.
And the government estimate of compensation cost(4 trillion yen), which the article above is based on, is highly dubious because concluding the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant is not yet in sight.

Moreover, the author assumes both the cost of nuclear and renewable energy are invariant.
However, it is highly likely that renewable energy will be more and more inexpensive due to technological improvements and expansion of scale. On the other hand, it is imperative the cost of nuclear energy will rise because of nuclear disaster insurance.

I wonder why those who rely on economic models often don't mention Schumpeter's concept of "innovation."