I can't believe that someone other than ttbn can be the first to respond to an article.
Back in my teaching days, now more than a decade gone I would have read this article, noticed the number of statements of questionable logic and asked the writer to go away, find a valid reference for each of the sweeping statements in the first page and resubmit this work with a neutral tone and a complete bibliography.
There are good reasons for considering nuclear power - there are also good reasons for NOT considering nuclear power.At the moment the reasons for Not considering nuclear power appear to be more reasonable.
Consequently nuclear power is not on the planning boards of many nations on earth.
I invite a reasonable, polite and factual response.

Hi Brian,

I think that the LNT model and the alara principle that derives from it have made nuclear power far more expensive than it need be. Now that we are in an age where the risk is far better understood, standardising the safety regulations to better reflect the risk is a necessary precursor for a nuclear resurgence.

It is very unlikely that much wind or solar would be built were it subject to the same level of restriction as nuclear. For example, none would be built in Australia as it would be illegal.

And to provide you with some background, here is what Donald Trump has been up to.

https://thebulletin.org/2025/10/president-trumps-radical-attack-on-radiation-safety/

I guess that it might be a while before there is a general appreciation of how critical this change is for making nuclear power more cost competitive.

And this article outlines the massive amount of over-regulation and over-engineering in current nuclear builds:

https://ifp.org/nuclear-power-plant-construction-costs/

Long term, nuclear power provides the cheapest dispatchable energy. Bring the engineering and regulation into line with other industry and nuclear power might become cheaper still.

A few of your points deserve clarification, Fester.

//The LNT model and ALARA have made nuclear far more expensive than it need be.//

They’ve added cost, yes, but the article you linked from IFP points to a range of causes: labour and material escalation, financing risk, design changes mid-build, and lack of standardisation. LNT isn't the sole culprit.

//Now that we better understand the risk, safety regs should be standardised.//

That's a legitimate goal, but the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists article you shared doesn’t celebrate deregulation. It calls Trump’s shift a "radical attack" on radiation safety and warns of undermining public trust.

//Wind and solar wouldn’t be built if held to the same standards as nuclear.//

False equivalence.

Nuclear requires tight regulation because it involves ionising radiation, long-lived waste, and catastrophic failure risk. Wind and solar simply don’t pose that kind of hazard.

//Trump’s change will make nuclear more cost-competitive.//

Unlikely.

The Bulletin article raises alarm, not optimism. And again, per IFP: construction costs dominate nuclear economics, not radiation safety compliance. Deregulating radiation exposure doesn’t make financing cheaper or builds faster.

//The IFP article outlines over-regulation and over-engineering.//

Partly, but it also names FOAK issues, poor project management, and long build times. It doesn’t say deregulation alone would make nuclear viable, only that cost is multi-causal and complex.

//Nuclear provides the cheapest dispatchable energy long-term..//

Not for new builds in the West. Reports from IEA, Lazard, and CSIRO all place new nuclear well above wind, solar, and even some gas. Gen IV may improve this, but it’s not yet commercially proven.

//Bringing regulation in line with other industries will reduce cost.//

Maybe - but it won’t fix the core issues of financing risk, public trust, build delays, or scale. Cutting corners on safety might backfire spectacularly, too.

Your articles don’t support the narrative you’re trying to build. If anything, they highlight how complicated the economics and politics of nuclear really are.

John

"Your articles don’t support the narrative you’re trying to build. If anything, they highlight how complicated the economics and politics of nuclear really are."

Those articles do in fact make a case for low cost nuclear by looking at the reasons that make build costs lower and higher, against which your stock stupid reply makes no sense.

Thankfully Trump is making changes that could make nuclear power much cheaper. Isn't the reduction of CO2 emissions supposed to avert an existential crisis? So why not then have a world wide collaborative effort to better do what the French did half a century ago? Why not a Liberty ships program of nuclear power stations? It sounds much better than a few nations like Australia destroying their economies while the rest of the world does sfa.