That’s such a wild misrepresentation of what I’ve been saying that anyone reading what you just said can only conclude that you’re arguing in bad faith.

My only point through this conversation is the factual statement that nuclear is not a competitive option.

Saying that "nuclear is cheapest once it gets running" is so ridiculous that, again, it has to be made in bad faith, because you’re intentionally glossing over the whole point: the MASSIVE cost of building it, the massive cost of decommissioning it, and the massive cost in case anything goes wrong.

There are heaps of solutions out there for a balanced grid. Nuclear has no place in it.

Again, you’re stringing words together.

Cost is a very real measure.

You could say that the numbers scribbled down on pieces of paper next to a dollar sign are artificial or miscalculated, but the invested manpower and resources and time (and a large number of other consequences) are all very real, and translate into a cost.

It ultimately gets translated into costs, that’s what greenlights a project.

“it’s easy to drop at a place that has grid connections”

Funny, because solar or literally any other plant will also benefit from having existing connections, and all of them are easier and cheaper to build than nuclear.

Nuclear is dead but for niche applications.

You’re stringing worlds together at this point.

Cost is the single largest factor in the deployment of new power plants, and solar is just impossible to match right now.

You could spend literally decades and billions building a nuclear plant, or start deploying solar right this minute and immediately reap the rewards of that investment.

It’s a no-brainer.

Very good. If it all goes up in flames nobody will have a copy and nothing of value will be lost.