> How many net GW of new nuclear were added in the year with the highest addition?

There were six (6) new reactors > 1 Gw connected to the grid this year, totaling 7.4 Gw capacity, and eight (8) new reactor construction starts, totaling 9.7 Gw capacity.

There were zero (0) new solar plants > 4 Gw (which you realistically need to be equivalent to a 1 Gw nuke) brought online in this year. In fact, there weren't even any > 1 Gw (equivalent to a 250 Mw nuke) brought online.

And no, putting a few solar panels on your roof isn't going to replace grid scale generation stations when it comes to running an industrial civilization. It's a fantasy akin to Mao's idea that people were going to be smelting iron in small furnaces in their back yard.

Hahah. Nice mental gymnastics. Utility solar doesn't exist unless it's all in one place and industrial machinery explodes if a joule of energy that comes fron a residential roof powers it.

You're really hunting for somewhere to move those goalposts to now.

Are you going to answer the question or are you going to cry victim?

I made a (provably) true statement, namely that grid-scale renewables largely do not exist.

You tried to change the subject to something else. Sorry, you don't get to do that. I don't owe you any of my time to discuss a different topic of your choosing, especially not when (based on our previous encounter) you:

1) don't understand the difference between power and energy

2) don't understand the difference between energy storage and energy production

and

3) are rude and abusive.

So lying and crying victim and then trying to ad hominem based on your failure at reading comprehension then.

If you want people to treat you with respect, you could try making a single good faith comment, rather than a ridiculous stretch using tortured definitions and then cry bullying when people point out how ridiculous it is.

I'm not "crying" about anything.

I'm just not letting you waste any more of my time.

Deal.