[johnzim]

It's pretty hard to have an industry with the weight of current regulation - not just in terms of how much scrutiny fission receives compared to technologies we _know kill people at an alarming rate_, such as fossil fuel combustion, but also in regulating something that was still relatively new technology the same way that we regulated other energy generation.

At least with smaller reactors it's more feasible to get operating data and be on a path to economies of scale. The US now has a second chance to get it right, and the US can always be counted on to do the right thing, after exhausting every other alternative.

[littlestymaar]

The railway and aeronautics industry have regulation constraints that aren't that far to what nuclear has[1], without preventing the industry to thrive. The worst thing that can ever happen to the nuclear industry would be another catastrophic incident (even one with almost no casualty like Fukushima) so I think taking safety extremely seriously is the only thing that nuclear energy can afford.

[1]: My wife work in nuclear engineering, and I did work for the rail industry for some time. It's not exactly the same, but it's also not that different compared to other regulated industries, like healthcare for instance, where it's full YOLO compare to both of the above.