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.

Fester,

There’s a big difference between an article examining cost factors and one proving nuclear is low-cost. The IFP article does the former. It lists reasons for high costs - including overregulation - but also points to project mismanagement, FOAK design changes, and financing risks.

You’ve cherry-picked one factor and ignored the rest.

You say Trump’s changes "could" make nuclear cheaper. Possibly. But the Bulletin article clearly frames these changes as politically driven, scientifically contested, and likely to erode public trust - which is the opposite of what a maturing nuclear industry needs. Framing this as a breakthrough while ignoring the backlash is selective at best.

If it was such a good idea, then it would have been done years ago. This is no different to every other policy of Trump's - hailed as genius, as though it took Trump to think of it: it hasn't been done because we already know it's a bad idea.

Your "Liberty ships" analogy is appealing in theory. But again, the IFP article itself shows this was only viable in the past because:

- Plants were smaller
- Designs were repeated
- Regulation was looser before major accidents (e.g. TMI, Chernobyl, Fukushima)
- And public trust was not yet eroded

None of those conditions apply now.

A "worldwide collaborative effort" sounds good - except it’s been tried. France succeeded under a heavily centralised, state-backed, standardised system during the 1970s oil crisis. The US tried in the 2000s with the so-called "nuclear renaissance" - but Vogtle 3 and 4 are now a $35 billion cautionary tale.

And yes, decarbonisation is urgent. But what’s actually working - now, at scale - is wind, solar, and storage. They’re faster to deploy, cheaper per kWh, and don’t carry the same political baggage or risk profile. It's not "destroying our economy" to use the most efficient tools available.

You can dream of a nuclear revival all you like, but if it takes 15 years, $10 billion, and a miracle of deregulation to match what solar can do in 18 months, you’ve lost all perspective on the issue.

John

More Johnnywaffle.

"You’ve cherry-picked one factor and ignored the rest."

How is it cherry picking when it discusses all reasons? The statement is nonsensical.

"If it was such a good idea, then it would have been done years ago."

"but if it takes 15 years, $10 billion, and a miracle of deregulation to match what solar can do in 18 months,"

It was. Remember the French build that powered their electricity grid 150% in fifteen years? You seem to keep forgetting this fact. Can you name a nation that has done as much with wind and solar in fifteen years? No nation has come remotely close, yet you persist with your lie that wind and solar is faster? What's happened is a realisation that wind and solar don't cut it when it comes to powering national grids. That is why AI companies are pursuing nuclear and ignoring wind and solar.

https://world-nuclear-news.org/articles/amazon-updates-smr-progress-with-new-images-of-proposed-plant

"- Regulation was looser before major accidents (e.g. TMI, Chernobyl, Fukushima)"

Two of those "major accidents" killed one person between them, and most of the deaths from Chernobyl resulted from Russian government secrecy preventing the timely distribution of iodine tablets. Even with those accidents, nuclear ranks between wind and solar for the lowest risk of death, and it has arguably prevented millions of deaths by replacing fossil fuel generation.

ctd

"- And public trust was not yet eroded"

Public trust had been eroded ever since the bombing of Hiroshima, and much of the regulation stemmed from concerns about the effect of radiation. Since those times many of the fears have been found to be exaggerated or inaccurate, although you seem to do your bit to fan the flames of irrational fear.

"A "worldwide collaborative effort" sounds good - except it’s been tried."

If you want net zero, it has to be world wide. What stopped the French effort was a combination of oil discoveries and the lower cost of coal generation. Can Australia make the world net zero with its wind and solar idiocy?

"But what’s actually working - now, at scale - is wind, solar, and storage. They’re faster to deploy, cheaper per kWh, and don’t carry the same political baggage or risk profile."

That is a lie and not supported by any evidence, as every nation that has replaced its generation with wind and solar has seen costs rise proportionally to how much they build.

Three test reactors will reach criticality before July 4 2026. Trump is not wasting time or money on wind and solar scams.

https://world-nuclear-news.org/articles/doe-announces-first-selections-for-pilot-reactor-programme

Wind and solar are a con.

Fester,

You’re conflating historic examples, cherry-picked industry announcements, and misleading generalisations.

//How is it cherry-picking when it discusses all reasons?//

Because you only emphasised one - regulation - as the barrier to low-cost nuclear, despite the IFP article clearly listing multiple causes: FOAK designs, financing risks, labour/material escalation, poor project management, etc. Mentioning others doesn’t count if you ignore them in your argument.

//It was. Remember the French build…//

Yes. Remember my response every time you raise it?

France built quickly under a centralised, state-run program with a standardised design and total political alignment - during an energy crisis. That’s not remotely replicable in liberal democracies today. It’s also not the private-sector-led miracle you’re now imagining.

//Can you name a nation that has done as much with wind and solar in fifteen years?//

Germany, Denmark, Spain, China, and Australia have all achieved massive renewable penetration in under 15 years. Australia hit over 35% grid penetration from virtually zero since 2010 - with solar rooftops alone at world-leading levels. Solar and wind builds go up in months, not decades.

//AI companies are pursuing nuclear…//

They're exploring SMRs, which remain unproven commercially. Your Amazon article is about a concept still under licensing review, with no confirmed site or deployment schedule. Hype ≠ solution.

//Nuclear ranks between wind and solar for lowest death risk…//

Correct. But that’s not the point.

The issue isn’t risk once running, but political, financial, and temporal viability. And deaths per TWh don’t make a $10B, 15-year project a rational climate strategy when faster, cheaper options exist now.

//Public trust had been eroded since Hiroshima…//

Then thank you for making my point - public mistrust is deeply embedded, and deregulating radiation limits won’t rebuild it. Quite the opposite.

//Every nation that built wind and solar saw costs rise.//

Blatantly false.

LCOE of renewables has plummeted. Australia, Portugal, and Texas have all seen wholesale prices drop during peak solar and wind production. Storage is improving yearly. The GenCost report and IEA confirm this.

//Wind and solar are a con.//

That’s not an argument. It’s a slogan. I’ll stick with evidence.

Nukes cost parliamentary jobs. Solar and wind is popular.
Nut cases keep spruking nukes, it damages your chances of ever seeing the govt: that you prefer. Nukes turns people off and obliterates political parties as we see.

Doog,

I'm only trying to make sense of things. If wind and solar are the cheapest and fastest then why are power prices so high and why is it taking so long? Why does every nation that pursues wind and solar end up with higher power prices? How did France power their entire grid in fifteen years with nuclear half a century ago (150% of) when Germany barely got over 20% over the past two decades with wind and solar? Why are all the tech companies (e.g. Google, Amazon, Bill Gates) pursuing the nuclear power option, many via smr startups, if wind and solar are so fantastic?

Power would have been much cheaper and more reliable had wind and solar not been pursued, but real world examples strongly suggest that nuclear is a better low carbon alternative to coal.

As for Dr Ridd, his "crime" seems to be one of being a scientist who reports his observations honestly. He observed the GBR, claimed to be in peril, found that it was in good health, and for that he has been condemned as a heretic. And here is presenting research and argument against the claim of ocean acidification being catastrophic. No doubt he will be further vilified for his honesty and integrity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaQE6Fbr9y0

Once again, Fester:

//If wind and solar are the cheapest and fastest then why are power prices so high and why is it taking so long?//

Because you’re cherry-picking prices during the transition, not after.

Countries like Australia and Germany have invested heavily in grid upgrades and early subsidies - front-loading costs. Yet wholesale prices during peak solar/wind are now plummeting. Australia had negative wholesale prices in SA during daytime in 2023, while rooftop solar cut demand and bills nationwide.

//Every nation that pursues wind and solar ends up with higher power prices.//

False.

IEA, Lazard, and CSIRO GenCost show wind and solar are now the cheapest new build energy sources globally. Prices rise where fossil fuels set the marginal cost - not because of wind and solar, but because of lagging fossil dependency and gas price volatility (e.g., during Ukraine conflict).

//Tech companies are going nuclear.//

They’re experimenting with SMRs, most of which do not exist yet. The Amazon article you linked shows only concept art and early design approvals. Meanwhile, those same companies are also building massive solar, wind, and battery farms.

As for the video you linked to, Ridd’s central claim is deeply misleading for three reasons:

1. Most marine calcifiers still depend on carbonate or are affected by pH shifts. Corals aren’t the whole story - mollusks, urchins, plankton are highly vulnerable, and ecosystem stability relies on them.

2. Acidification affects more than calcification. It alters larval development, behavior, enzyme function, and predator/prey interactions. Ridd ignores this entirely.

3. His citations (e.g. Spaulding, Willard) are cherry-picked and often buried in supplementary data, as he admits. He also omits recent reviews that continue to show measurable stress responses in coral physiology, even when bicarbonate is available

He builds a whole thesis from a narrow slice of literature and never quantifies uncertainty, just dismisses mainstream findings.

Ridd’s downplaying of acidification is as selective as your portrayal of nuclear. If SMRs become viable, great - but they’re not here yet. Wind, solar, and batteries are here now, scaling faster and cheaper.

That’s not a "scam," it’s just reality.

Fester You mention other countries, other countries are not Australia. We have the most intense and length of sunshine of anywhere in the world.
solar trades in negative costs how marketable is that and can you beat that.
Transition takes time like any other major project, and there protesters to put up with like yourself.
No one owns vista as many would have you believe.
40 years of climate denial has added major costs of any solution of change. That means we are 40 years behind any turnaround of an apparent solution. Which may even be to much and to late for a solution.
All because of ignorance and politics.