That doesn't stand to evidence. The Browns Ferry fire in 1975 was the real tipping point for regulations. After 1979, the regulations and QA requirements were very serious. The improved quality cost the plants more up front but they benefited dramatically from the extra quality by increasing capacity factors from 60% all the way to 90%, becoming cash cows in the early 2000s before fracked gas pulled the rug out on electricity prices.
By your same argument, I can just as easily dismiss your prophecy that inherently intermittent energy sources will scale to world scale with no serious environmental, regulatory, or economic challenges.
I might also point you to Energy Return On Investment studies with high penetrations of energy storage. Have you looked into that? I recommend it. You might also want to look into economic analysis from NREL on intermittent energy sources at high degrees of penetration.
We need at least 10x more wind and solar. I also think it's appropriate to engage the only 24/7 low-footprint low-carbon tool we know of: nuclear fission. No point in tying our hands because some people feel that they don't like nuclear. Nuclear data is in. It's super low carbon. It's very expandable. And it's very low-impact.
EROI is the biggest argument against what you're saying. [1]
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X1...!