The reason it's less economical than it could be is because of excessive regulation. We've come a long way with automation and safety engineering. Next-gen nuclear plants could produce energy far less expensively than coal if handled properly - with zero air pollution.
No, unless by "excessive regulation" you mean the fact that the industry is exposed to the same liability for unconsented harms done to third parties that every other industry is; because exemption from that liability is what the industry keeps lobbying for as the thing necessary to make it worthwhile to invest in new plants.
But usually, this kind of liability is wHat libertarians promote in place of regulation, not something anyone calls excessi regulation.
"No, unless by "excessive regulation" you mean the fact that the industry is exposed to the same liability for unconsented harms done to third parties that every other industry is; because exemption from that liability is what the industry keeps lobbying for as the thing necessary to make it worthwhile to invest in new plants."
Fossil fuel electricity generation kills an estimated 200,000 people a year worldwide. How many nuclear energy related deaths have happened since Fukushima (2011)? Approximately zero.
Nothing is perfect, but nuclear is the safest form of baseline, reliable power we have. A whole lot of propaganda (and stupidity) is holding it back. The waste problem is easily solvable given the will to do so, and I'm optimistic that Yucca Mountain will be restarted given the current political climate. If not, there's always the mid-Pacific subduction zone.
Regardless, there's a great need for improved nuclear power technology until the time that a better high-density energy source becomes practical.
The argument that US nuclear power projects face the same regulatory challenges as "every other industry" is completely untenable. There is an entire regulatory body (the NRC) charged with managing regulations for that one particular method of power generation. This fact alone is enough to refute it.
There is also an argument that the "regulatory ratcheting" from the NRC is due to political pressure rather than engineering principles[0].
Finally it is hard to read former chairman Gregory Jaczko's recent comments about Fukushima and not conclude that the NRC was, and quite possibly still is, actively opposing the nuclear industry with an ultimate goal of shutting it down[1].
I didn't say the nuclear industry faces the same regulations as any other industry, I said the problem that restricts the economic viability of the industry isn't special regulations, its general liability, which is why in a country where there is a major and powerful political faction that is favorably predisposed toward industry complaints of overregulation, the industry itself doesn't generally complain of overregulation but instead of the need for broad government-granted immunity from general liability.
If you're talking about the Price-Anderson Act, a law requiring plant operators to purchase liability insurance is a kind of regulation. Let's assume you are correct that this particular regulation is not uncommon in the energy industry.
Do you have an example supporting your claim that nuclear power companies are being hindered by the cost of this liability insurance rather than all the other construction protocols, environmental and safety audits, and permits from every level of government they have to pay for?
These two new reactors can only be built if NuStar spends $520 million on licensing, for example:
