apnews.com - AP, 2026-07-26

|------- ... The Energy Department, which oversees national energy policies, has already stopped using ALARA. The NRC expects to finalize its radiation protection regulations in the coming months.

NRC Chairman Ho Nieh said the commission is not lowering the bar on safety.

"We're just removing the ambiguity. But the standard for exposure to workers and the public, those are not changing. We're just putting in place greater clarification."

Nieh doesn't expect major changes within the nation's existing fleet of large, traditional reactors. But companies designing and building new, smaller reactors could move faster with a clearer picture of the radiation protection requirements, he said.

The NRC said radiation exposure limits are set well below levels associated with health effects, and it expects remaining standards and industry practices to keep radiation doses far below the limits. There's incentive to do so - it's more expensive and time-consuming to work in areas with higher radiation because access must be restricted and more surveys are required.

The nuclear industry's trade association agrees with the NRC. ...

ALARA created a "moving target" for regulation, said Justin Friedman, a nuclear energy consultant who previously spent three decades at the U.S. Department of State. Getting rid of the rule would allow NRC scientists to make more rational decisions about appropriate levels of manageable risk ...
-------|

Much ado about nothing. Making mountains out of molehills whenever something "nuclear" is mentioned.

BTW, Biden's Secretary of Commerce, Gina Raimondo (who, IMO, would be a great candidate for President/VP in 2028) emphasized the importance and promoted the collaborative development of nuclear and hydrogen energy.

Or we can keep listening to notable "climate scientists" like Jane Fonda and Greta Thunberg et al, that impeded development (and/or were pushing a phase-out) of one of the cleanest and safest energy solutions in the USA, while China, Russia and few other countries went full speed ahead with nuclear deployment.

www.realclearenergy.org - Jane Fonda's Views on Nuclear Energy Are Stuck in the 1970s - RCN, 2024-10-17

www.latimes.com - Jane Fonda's anti-nuclear arguments don't make sense - 2024-10-08
__________

drudge.com - Chinese firms are well ahead of their Western peers. China likely stands 10 to 15 years ahead of the United States in nuclear power | Plans For New Reactors Worldwide | Why tech giants such as Microsoft, Amazon, Google and Meta are betting big on nuclear power - 2026-06-25

drudge.com - Why Renewables Can't Save the Planet | Electricity rates by state - 2019-06-25

drudge.com - Britain's Net Zero Disaster and the Wind Power Scam | Gas Turbine Market Size, Growth 2026-2035 - 2026-05-11


Put this in perspective - for all the "growth of solar installations" (52% are residential PPAs) and projections hype:
"In 2024, 20 U.S. states (including California) generated, on average, about 5% of their electricity from renewables"
... and ...
"In 2024 the U.S. solar industry sales reached $26B... estimated to have contributed $250B to the economy" - that's less than 0.1% and 1% of the US GDP, respectively.

Really bad news? While China was ramping up all energy buildouts, the US total annual electricity generation in absolute terms stalled (and in many years actually fell slightly) from 2008 through 2023 - nuclear and hydro stalled; coal use dropped significantly but is still only slightly below combined wind and solar; only a huge increase in NG (in part, for new renewables installations backup), that dwarfs combined use of wind and solar, was responsible for keeping the lights on in the US.

India (24%), China (12%), Japan (9%), Brazil (8%) and Netherlands (8%) are buying most of the produced "excess coal" for those coal-fired plants they built in that period.

EU in 2022 has reclassified NG (and nuclear) as "green" energy, and even relaxed regs on methane emissions recently, because they need the illusion of achieving 2030-2050 "green climate goals" fantasy to coincide with their real needs for "energy security."

"Climate change" politics have become about "fighting for renewables and BEVs everywhere" no matter the actual cost to the economy, consumers, taxpayers and/or the environment... even as real environmentalists, not political activists living in the past, long ago moved on from "Greta and Jane" and are all for nuclear power and hydrogen.
__________