You are saying that you are worried about botched conclusions based on superficial observations, and then you do exactly that. There were a lot of mistakes in

You are saying that you are worried about botched conclusions based on superficial observations, and then you do exactly that. There were a lot of mistakes in the way Germany exited nuclear. Concluding from that "not exiting nuclear is a silver bullet" is as stupid as saying "renewable is the silver bullet". There are plenty of ways of exiting nuclear, the way used by Germany was bad and we are learning for their mistakes. Concluding that all way of exiting nuclear is bad based on that is not true and demonstrated incorrect by plenty of examples where renewables are doing their job very well. Same with France: the way they have deployed nuclear is very bad, they sold electricity way too cheap and don't have accumulated enough money to pay for renewing or dismantling the plants. You were saying that some idiots are just thinking "the prototype works, it will work at scale", and you are behaving exactly the same way by looking very superficially at France. The peope who reacted to are demonstrating less naivety and botched conclusions than you. They don't really say "renewable is the silver bullet", they just say something that is true "renewables is way more promising than nuclear", which is just a conclusion that experts are reaching, not because there are prototypes, but because they've studied the simulation from beginning to end, with renewables and nuclear, and it is what the math is telling them.