and I also suppose that the contracts with private corporations are such, that they don't just lose their money if regulation changes. Although, again, I'm a lay person when it comes to the US energy sector.
Totally fair. I think the issue has been that the various parts of the US government have been working at cross purposes with respect to nuclear power.
> and I also suppose that the contracts with private corporations are such, that they don't just lose their money if regulation changes.
The way the NRC works, they can without notice change the rules in a way that will force you to redesign a plant that is under construction. If you're too far along you'll just have to scrap the whole thing. If you look at this list of closed or abandoned nuclear projects, 4 are explicitly due to NRC changes[1]. This doesn't include any cancelled plans that hadn't begun construction and isn't a complete list. If coal power were regulated the way nuclear was, there would be no coal power in the US. Coal plants release 2 orders of magnitude more radiation per kwh than nuclear in the US and in a form that is more dangerous, e.g. coal ash which goes deep into your lungs[2].
But in the US, the government seems to have funded a lot of the practical research activity on Nuclear energy - tens of Billions of USD:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies_in_the_United...
and I also suppose that the contracts with private corporations are such, that they don't just lose their money if regulation changes. Although, again, I'm a lay person when it comes to the US energy sector.
(PS - I didn't downvote you.)