I was trying to synthesize the discussion I've seen here. Your link is interesting but still in line with the discussion I've seen so far. People can point out

I was trying to synthesize the discussion I've seen here. Your link is interesting but still in line with the discussion I've seen so far. People can point out examples of excessive red-tape in some countries. But no one agrees how much can be removed, because everyone agrees the downside to failing nuclear is grave and needs to be regulated. And since nuclear needs something like a 5 to 10x improvement in cost to be competitive it doesn't seem feasible that just deregulation is the answer. My hypothesis is that nuclear was our best bet to decarbonize the grid 20 or 30 years ago but meanwhile wind and solar have improved so much and are still on such a steep improvement curve that nothing else makes sense. But I'm happy to be convinced otherwise. It would be cool to have a fourth good source of energy in the clean mix and SMRs do sound better than traditional plants.