> while nuclear is subject to expensive and arbitrary regulatory burdens

One major thing about nuclear is that we do not even truly understand the effects of wide-ranging low doses of nuclear radiation.

I am repeating here from an earlier post:

There are many things we do not understand about radiation. The traditional models on radiation dosis and health effects are probably too simple. There is a strain of research on epigenetic effects of ionizing radiation:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=de&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=epig...

Simply put, we often see the DNA as a kind of program which is executing on our body. But it is actually a program which, activates, inactivates, modifies and rewrites itself, so that the program code can reflect environmental conditions - especially during the growth of a fetus.

Radiation effects are very difficult to capture by statistics. A part of the reason is that cancer is not a rare illness, and any kind of cancer which might be induced by additional low doses of radiation will be covered by a lot of noise. But if these low doses of radiation affect a large number of individuals, radiation could still cause a lot of damage. What makes it even more difficult is that radiation, as it affects genetic control loops in the cell, has no distinct picture of its effects. It could be cancer, but it could also be effects on the central nervous system. Or circulatory diseases, which have been reported from Chernobyl as well. And what makes it more difficult of course is that it is not an area where one can make controlled experiments, so it is mostly science by observation. This is tricky because there are so many confounding factors. Even with something entirely plausible like, say, "smoking causes cancer", or "neonicotinoids probably affect bees and insects", it is hard to come to a conclusion.

There are also more concrete causes for concern. In Germany, following some irregularities at the Kruemmel nuclear plant, in the Wesermarsch area near Hamburg, it was found there was a cluster of leukemia cases in children - many times more than what was to be expected from the normal statistical case numbers. In the follow-up, the incidence of leukemia near all nuclear power stations was determined, and compared to other factors. A significantly higher incidence of leukemia was found, with no good explanation so far.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9728737/

http://www.crause.de/elbmarschleukaemie.html

https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leuk%C3%A4mieclus...

Some researchers also have found there is a correlation between the proportion of sexes of humans at birth, and radiation:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03783...

I need to point out that this is not established science - but it poses very important questions.

The traditional theory on effects of ionizing radiation can so far still not explain this. A possible hypothesis is that radiation disturbs the expression of the delicate self-modifying genetic program, which has disproportionately large effects during early development.

Another interesting observation is that in Chernobyl, insects seem more affected by radiation than vertebrates.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=de&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=epig...
https://www.thoughtco.com/chernobyl-animal-mutations-4155348

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2679916/

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/chernobyls-bugs-...