> Nuclear has failed to scale

This reminds me of the joke "Fusion is 30 years away and always will be".

The reason is that a panel of scientist predicted various timelines of viable fusion between 30 years and infinity years based on effective funding. Ever since the funding for nuclear research was significantly below the level of the infinity years[0].

I suspect nuclear fission followed a similar path in the last decades.

[0] https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-the-f...

> Nuclear has failed to scale, it's a well documented issue.

It hasn't, and it's not a "well-documented issue". What's documented is decades of FUD, fear-mongering, underinvestment etc.

> If decarbonization is the goal, projects like Flamanville are already a failure

Why not look at projects like Fuqing Nuclear Power Plant instead?

> will take decades and decades to make up for the construction time

Ho long will it take to overbuild renewables and all the required power storage for them?

E.g. right now, during the day, Germany's renewables are generating:

- wind: 20% of installed capacity

- solar: 34% of installed capacity

- pumped hydro storage: sucking up 8% of total power generation for recharging

> Germany was over 50% coal 20 years ago, it would still be at this level if it had gone that route.

Which route? E.g. France's carbon output from electricity generation is ~56g/kWh. Germany's is ~340g/kWh. Care to guess why?

It's well documented even by people in favor of nuclear. For example: https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power...

> Why not look at projects like Fuqing Nuclear Power Plant instead

Because the person I replied to talked about Flamanville... Do you even read what is discussed or just frantically go from one post to the other?

I also posted how long it took to reach 50% renewables - 20 years, during which time the EDF/Areva failed to complete almost all of the projects they were involved with. If Germany had gone that route it would still be pumping out 800g/kWh like Poland does and it would be doing that for the last 20 years. Thank God it didn't make that mistake.

I talked about Flamanville because the article is about France and I mentioned France's underinvestment. If you want to talk about well funded projects then yes the Chinese have done a much better job. But you're not really talking in earnest.

I'll repeat again. Nuclear power projects in France took 20 years and were not completed because of underinvestment; about 10% of what the Germans paid for the Energiewende. If the French invested 10x more money, the industry could have been rebuilt. Instead they just perfuse enough to keep it half-alive.

So we should talk about that one that maybe was not a total disaster, but we should not talk about the three others that have been. I notice a lot of no true Scotsman rhetoric by nuclear people in general: France is proof we can build nuclear fast, but they didn't do it right by not maintaining properly. Germany is proof we can run nuclear plants efficiently, but they are incompetent for not being able to make it work. Etc. etc. If only the French had done this or that. But in the end it does not work.

You don't have to repeat anything, I heard you the first time. Flamanville cost a 1/10 of the Energiewende and its output is 0. Its theoretical output is 1/25 of the actual output of German renewables. That's not a good deal. If the goal is to decarbonize, Flamanville is already a failure, for reasons I already posted.

You say you heard me but didn't seem to understand it. That's okay, I notice a lot of misunderstanding of things by anti-nuclear people in general :)

(I'm copying your rhetoric in case you don't notice)

Thank you

Except my rhetoric is based on what you said (coulda would shoulda and it would all be peaches), not on made up impressions of other people. Living in a fact free world is also typical of pro-nuclear people. Take care. I will stop now, since some people got banned for flame wars already, and rightfully so.