1) Development of a standardized power plant design that emphasizes safety, ease of construction, and cost. Such a design should take maximal advantage of the economy of scale.

Agreed. This worked well for France. However, you don't want to tighten it to the point where innovation is strangled or worse, you standardize some unexpected flaw. I've seen some work done on very safe small reactors for local power. My gut instinct goes against that, but we can't write off any idea too soon.

2) Development of a national infrastructure to support the building of these reactors.

Obviously I prefer making these things domestically, but if good quality reactors can be built in Japan or France to get them on line ten years sooner, I wouldn't complain

3) Financial incentives, risk reduction, and performance rewards for industry. Similar to the 2005 EPAct, but much larger in scale.

Yes, but there's going to be a lot of devil, and a lot of politics, in the details.

4) Incentives (and or penalties) to encourage the abandoning of coal power.

Tightening emission rules over a reasonable length of time would accomplish this without wrecking a major industry. I don't want to rule out coal gasification if it can be accomplished effectively. Realistically, it's still going to be a long time before carbon fuel is phased out of transportation, and at least we can reduce imports while giving the coal industry something else to do besides burn it in power plants.

5) Hold government financially liable for costs incurred due to changes made to the regulations after they have been agreed to by industry and the government.

Good idea, but I wish you luck on that one. I can think of a LOT of industries that wouldn't mind that kind of arrangement.

6) Scrapping the existing tangled regulatory system and starting anew, with the view that nuclear power is now an essential national priority.

7) Set regulations for the design agreed upon by the industry and the government prior to construction.

8) An entirely NEW regulatory body that works in partnership with the industry and government, but is reasonably independent from both.

9) Rethinking the laws and regulations that allow power plant construction to be held up indefinitely by lawsuits. Environmental Impact Studies need to take into account the greater good of eliminating GHG production and give that priority.

These four are closely related. The idea of newer and simpler regulations is tempting, but opens up the likely result of having the new regulations tied up in the system for twenty years. God help us if we generate a new rule-making bureaucracy. From experience in regulating space systems, I've learned that rule-making bureaucracies never stop making and changing the rules. Otherwise, why do they exist?

A better solution might be to work with existing rules (that power companies are already set up to deal with), but ensure that arbitrary changes and after-the-fact crap don't screw things up.

10) Education of the public on nuclear power, and why it is needed.

Boy, you said a mouthful there. There's a LOT of damage from the last thirty years that needs to be undone. Note that there are a number of prominent environmentalists who are now pro-nuclear, and good use could be made of them.