Part of the problem with these kinds of discussions is that people get very pro-<whatever their preferred energy> and get so focused on that, that the big picture, and alternatives (ironically) get ignored.
There is no reason that nuclear can’t be used here in the US, as can be seen in other countries that make good use of it. For the record, much of the reason Germany has gone away from nuclear is the same as the US. i.e. mostly fear mongering and overblown sense of risk.
As for the regulation of nuclear industry, I’m not that familiar with it, but I agree from what I’ve seen that it is stupidly more regulated than coal/natural gas. And more regulated than the manufacture of PV and similar production. Once solar and wind parts are built, I imagine they are pretty safe.
The reason (I suspect) nuclear should be regulated more is the same reason commercial aircraft are regulated much more than cars. The potential for catastrophe is much higher if something does go badly. Whether or not it’s [/i]over[/i] regulated, I’m not qualified to say. I hear a lot of people say the same about aircraft, but I disagree, so I’m somewhat skeptical of those who claim that nuclear energy is over-regulated for the same reason. I’m also certain that oil, gas and coal are vastly under-regulated, but they’ve got a much longer history of lobbying, so there’s n uphill battle there.
Nuclear, wind, solar and hydro could all be used in the right, nationally integrated plan, but that would require a national level plan (individual states could do it, but it would be problematic at that scale, I suspect). So the odds of a good, comprehensive power plan ever happening in the US is miniscule, unfortunately.
