https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/ThreeYrsEnergyAvailabilityFactor.aspx https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/ThreeYrsEnergyAva... Nuclear is typ

https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/ThreeYrsEnergyAvailabilityFactor.aspx https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/ThreeYrsEnergyAva... Nuclear is typically under 80% availability, with the three usual examples of "cheap fast" programs being even lower. The only exceptions of note are the US whose program is horrifically expensive -- and to get >90% requires some accounting tricks like spending big money on upgrading rated power without changing the nameplate and ignoring all the failed projects that were still paid for -- and China. The wind blows more consistently by having a higher hub height or putting it in a better place. Both are being done which is why, contrary to your claim, every year the capacity factor of new projects increases. > France identified that irregular metallurgy caused faster corrosion, and this informs future builds This is a great example of a factor leading to a negative learning rate just like the US experienced ever since their first large commercial plants began operating at the end of the 60s.