Thus your argument does not support your conclusion, since regulations come from outside the industry.
This surprised me! So I Googled it. Is this your source? It is Wikipedia's source. Who are the 440 people dying per trillion kWh of rooftop solar? (note: this is rooftop solar; utility solar statistics aren't included in the below source)
[0]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents#Fatalities
There wasn't even a single tkWh of power produced by rooftop solar in 2012. The total solar (rooftop, commercial, and thermal) energy produced in the US in 2012 was 4,327 million kWh... or half a percent of 1 tkWh... making me think that the 'deathprint' of 440 deaths per tkWh for rooftop solar in 2012 was extrapolated by taking the number of people who slipped and fell off a roof and multiplying it by 200. My guess, based on the expression "Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)", and the fact that less than 4.3 billion kWh of solar energy was produced in 2012 by rooftop solar (Wiki doesn't break out production by method), is that approximately two people have died in the quest for solar energy.
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_United_Stat...
Further - it is too soon to tell what the 'deathprint' for any given kWh of nuclear energy is. The method of production could kill someone for some time after the kWh is consumed.
When you pick a rock off the ground there's about an 80-90% chance it's very good quality silicon carbonates. Silicon metal can even be made from sand, dredged from underwater or excavated from topsoil. Sand is a readily available resource.
Silicon mining is the greenest mining process we have, and on a mass basis is better than the metal required for nuclear plants and fuel. Silicon refining involves some nasty chemicals (one gas in particular turns into solid sand once it hits the water on the inside of your lungs), but they are located in very good, very expensive, very safe equipment. They get regenerated so no chemicals escape the machinery (99.9999% retention).
The regulations haven't changed since the new American units began construction. Regulations were supposed to be factored in to the cost/schedule estimates. Yet the original cost/schedule estimates turned out to be badly mistaken. Being in a highly regulated industry (like making nuclear reactors, airliners, or pharmaceuticals) does increase costs over lightly regulated sectors. But it isn't an excuse for mis-estimating costs and schedules that were supposed to be developed considering those factors. Boeing would be in crisis too if every unit of its latest airliner were double-digit-percentages over budget and over allotted assembly time.
I've been following the American AP1000 projects for years. The contractors blame the sub-contractors. The new sub-contractors are behind schedule just like the old sub-contractors. Nobody actually involved with these projects, AFAICT, is blaming the cost/schedule problems on regulators. Pro-nuclear bloggers have still tried shifting the blame away from the industry and back to environmentalists/regulators/the public at large.
EDIT: here's what Georgia Power and Westinghouse alike believed about the new AP1000 design:
Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 will be the first in the industry to use the Westinghouse AP1000 advanced pressurized water reactor technology. This advanced technology allows nuclear cores to be cooled even in the absence of operator interventions or mechanical assistance. The AP1000 is the safest and most economical nuclear power plant available in the worldwide commercial marketplace, and is the only Generation III+ reactor to receive Design Certification from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
The AP1000's simplified plant design results in a plant that is easier and less expensive to to build, operate and maintain. The plant's design has:
+ 50 percent fewer valves
+ 35 percent fewer pumps
+ 80 percent less piping
+ 45 percent less building volume
+ 70 percent less cable
than earlier-generation nuclear plants. The modular design also allows for faster construction.
https://www.georgiapower.com/about-energy/energy-sources/nuc...
The builder and the buyer both believed that these reactors would be faster and cheaper to build than past designs, before they actually tried to build them.
I don't think I've ever seen the prediction of such sentences bear out as planned. The word "modular" seems to have a way of taking big bites out a project's end performance and destroying budgets.
Maybe you weren't following closely enough...
John Ma, a senior structural engineer at the NRC was quoted on his stance about the AP1000 nuclear reactor:
"In 2009, the NRC made a safety change related to the events of September 11, ruling that all plants be designed to withstand the direct hit from a plane. To meet the new requirement, Westinghouse encased the AP1000 buildings concrete walls in steel plates. Last year Ma, a member of the NRC since it was formed in 1974, filed the first "non-concurrence" dissent of his career after the NRC granted the design approval. In it Ma argues that some parts of the steel skin are so brittle that the "impact energy" from a plane strike or storm driven projectile could shatter the wall. A team of engineering experts hired by Westinghouse disagreed..."
In 2010, following Ma's initial concerns, the NRC questioned the durability of the AP1000 reactor's original shield building in the face of severe external events such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and airplane collisions. In response to these concerns Westinghouse prepared a modified design... In May 2011, US government regulators found additional problems with the design of the shield building of the new reactors. The chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said that: computations submitted by Westinghouse about the building's design appeared to be wrong and "had led to more questions."; the company had not used a range of possible temperatures for calculating potential seismic stresses on the shield building in the event of, for example, an earthquake...
In November 2011, Arnold Gundersen published a further report on behalf of the AP1000 Oversight Group, which includes Friends of the Earth and Mothers against Tennessee River Radiation. The report highlighted six areas of major concern and unreviewed safety questions requiring immediate technical review by the NRC...
In 2012, Ellen Vancko, from the Union of Concerned Scientists, said that "the Westinghouse AP1000 has a weaker containment, less redundancy in safety systems, and fewer safety features than current reactors"....
In October 2013, Li Yulun, a former vice-president of China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC), raised concerns over the safety standards of the delayed AP1000 third-generation nuclear power plant being built in Sanmen, due to the constantly changing, and consequently untested, design...
So, a bunch of NIMBYs hire a professional witness/fraud like Arnold Gundersen (who stated in Al Jazeera that "Fukushima is the biggest industrial catastrophe in the history of mankind") to keep doing what he's been doing for his entire career, while other anti-nuclear groups (I mean, 'league of concerned scienticians') dogpile on. Then the NRC dogpile on too, because the AP1000 might not be able to withstand a plane flying in to it (a standard requirement of any self-respecting electric generation plant), and so Westinghouse redesign the containment structure to mercifully get regulatory approval.
Then one of their major buyers (CNNC) and owners of derivative intellectual property (the CAP1400 reactor) begins to raise concerns about delays and lack of testing due to the constantly changing design. From my point of view, it just looks like Westinghouse couldn't catch a break. In other words, par for the course in the nuclear power generation industry.
These people don't give a damn about the environment, climate change, human lives or rationality. They're far too busy keeping up their image as an 'anti-nuclear friend of the earth', an identity they've spent most of their lives investing in.
