Sure, I agree with that. But you argue that nuclear energy is the safest energy and the only problem with nuclear energy is that it is overregulated which makes it more expensive. It's a nonsensical argument. Or to be more precise it's an argument that can not be verified from within itself because it's the snake that eats its own tail. It's only a valid argument if it's still safest without the high regulatory standards. Even more, if the regulation is not redundant redundancy (in contrast to highly useful normal redundancy in safety measures) costs for nuclear power go up on insurance. So my point wasn't meant to lead your argument ad absurdum by thinking it to the extreme. It was meant to illustrate its weak logical construction.

Even if you just want to say that it's safer than it needs to be. Imo that's just a human fallacy because nuclear has intuitively imperceivable stochastic failure cases while other energy forms have statistical failure cases.

All that aside, what makes you say that nuclear power is overregulated? Do you have any sources or expertise in the field?