While most of the nuclear debate focuses on this concern, I think it misses an even earlier concern: we do not have the capability to build nuclear at the scale

While most of the nuclear debate focuses on this concern, I think it misses an even earlier concern: we do not have the capability to build nuclear at the scale needed for it to deal with the problem. We would need to start and complete ~100 reactors in the next 20 years just to keep our current level of nuclear. Back in 2008, we started 4, have abandoned two due to construction incompetence, and the other two are taking 2-3x as long as expected, and cost 2-3x as much. This is with only four reactors. If we tried to scale this 25-50x, our problems would multiply, not get easier. And that's just to keep our current level of nuclear, not switch to a high level of nuclear like we would need to do in order for nuclear to be a significant part of our energy interchange. We have far better routes to a carbon-free energy economy than paying contractors Thai have no clue what they are doing.