I disagree with this 100%, the only people using numbers to mode future carbon-free grids are ending up on massive amounts of solar, wind, and storage, with a t

I disagree with this 100%, the only people using numbers to mode future carbon-free grids are ending up on massive amounts of solar, wind, and storage, with a tiny bit of nuclear. But that nuclear is so difficult to build that the models that end up adding nuclear also have unrealistic costs and deployment timelines associated with it. We have ~100 reactors in the US, nearly all are close to end of life. We would need to start building ~100 reactors today in order to keep the same amount of nuclear in the future. We have one, just one, nearing completion, and no more that have any chance of getting funded and starting construction within a few years. We are going to go through a long period with far less nuclear than we have today, if we ever get to a period with more nuclear than today. I doubt we ever will. If you want numbers, check out Christopher Clack's modeling. It is by far the most detailed, and the most complete, and the most innovative. But to say that nuclear advocates run the numbers is just false. They can't even run the numbers on their own construction plans, much less the numbers on the system level of what it would take to keep nuclear a significant part of our grid. Nuclear advocates are the least numerate folks in the energy business, again and again, since the big burst of reactors in the 70s.