The costs of regulation, while perhaps not ideally efficient, are a real cost of nuclear power. They are the mechanism by which risks to the common environment

The costs of regulation, while perhaps not ideally efficient, are a real cost of nuclear power. They are the mechanism by which risks to the common environment are controlled. Currently, and increasingly in the future, there is this huge “externality” in the full costs of burning fossil fuels, which is not being connected to the use. Basic economic theory argues that externalities need to be handled by “non-market” means. Which essentially means regulation. For whatever reason, the particulars of nuclear power enable enough political will to make a serious attempt at regulation aimed at minimizing (horrific) externalities. The problem of human induced climate change presents a scary political reality, in which the political structures required to apportion the “true” cost of fossil fuel use might be not be possible. Or possible in a way where the cure is worse than the disease. If these costs were indeed born by users, the competitive position of nuclear power might be improved. However, this is not a sufficient argument to relax regulatory requirements for nuclear power.