[hef19898]

"It seems" is usually not true. Sure, nuclear is regulated. As are all other forms of electricity generation. As usual, regulation is written in blood, or in the case of nuclear three figure billions of clean-up costs after Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Regulation, I might remind you, that was written by staunchly pro-nuclear organizations.

Also, just necause you have regulations doesn't mean you don't have a free market. Hence, there is a free market for nuclear electricity. Thing is, nobody wants to finance new projects (with the exception of developing countries, but those have a lot of catching up to do).

One cost nuclear power plants do not have to carry is insurance against large accidents. No insurance comoany would take on said risk, hence the state is carrying that risk. Soubds to me like a huge cost factor is taken off from nuclear power plant operators here (just to pick one example).

As said elsewhere, I'm all for keeping existing NPPs running as long as safely possible (which was the reason Germany had to shut down a couple), and shut down coal plants instead. Building new NPPs takes too long to be a viable solution, and is too expensive (and hence the lack of fubding for new ones).

[bumby]

The rants about regulation being rooted in safety miss the point. As I stated before, I'm not making a claim that regulation is bad or unwarranted. What I'm pushing back on is the idea that the nuclear industry operates in a "free market." Utilities, in general, do not operate in a free market in the US. They are regulated monopolies. A startup cannot just decide to start generating electricity and tie into the grid, irrespective of whether they meet all the safety regulations. Not all regulations are safety-based but rather based on economics of scale being beneficial for the consumer. That's why it's not a free market.

So while there's a lot to discuss about the relative costs of nuclear, claiming they are the result of a free market doesn't really hold water.