> And it opens up foreign ownership of US-based reactors to members of the same organization, plus India; Russia and China are specifically excluded in the bill

> And it opens up foreign ownership of US-based reactors to members of the same organization, plus India; Russia and China are specifically excluded in the bill's text. This seems like a mistake. China are something like an entire technology generation ahead at this point. The US isn't used to playing from behind, but realistically they should probably copy China's strategy for bootstarting industries since it clearly works. I'm not sure what China's strategy actually is, but it is clear a component of it involves foreign investment from powers that are potentially hostile but have advanced capabilities. Then appropriating the technology. The US should open that option up to themselves. > And an academic analysis has found that safety regulations play only a small role in US costs. And this sounds like a bad conclusion to a study. I mean, I could put out a study saying that softballs defy gravity because they were observed with an upward-pointing velocity vector and dismiss the thrown-ball hypothesis because the pitcher isn't in physical contact with the ball so can't be influencing it at that point in time. The actual study done is pretty good, I went to have a read of it and there is lots of interesting data. But they are being unimaginative about the indirect effects of a hostile regulatory environment. Looking at a negative learning rate and collapsing labour productivity then concluding "well, gee, that just must be nuclear" is the type of stupidity that only clever people can achieve. There is no reason except regulation that an industry would perform that way. They need much stronger evidence to come to that sort of extraordinary claim.