I don't know what a strike price or a Hinkley point is, but if you're saying that it's more expensive than some other renewables, then the issue is still: we can't build enough renewables (in some countries it's physically impossible, in others you'd have to appropriate a lot of land for power production, and in a small number of exceptions the only issue is expenses) so price will have to go up in order to save mankind. I mean, we can haggle over prices, but that's what we're talking about. I'm not advocating nuclear because I see other options, I'm advocating it because I see no other options.

Fukushima was before I was into the topic. I really can't say anything either way, except to parrot what others say: it was tech from the 60s and they built it on a major fault line.

I haven't read up on insurance for nuclear reactors, so I can't say much about that either. Again, though, even if it's dangerous, I don't see a way out that does not include dependency by all countries on solar power from the Saharah and similar places, or nuclear power. Assuming it's somewhere in the middle between the current safety levels and the claimed ones for newer designs, we should not exclude nuclear. It's also not as if we would build 1000 reactors worldwide simultaneously. Some will be built earlier than others and we'll learn more about their safety, allowing us to steer whether we want to appropriate more land for renewables or continue building more reactors.