I made two consecutive comments in the thread . My point was split between the two comments and i replied was in combination of both. Comments and timestamp ar

I made two consecutive comments in the thread . My point was split between the two comments and i replied was in combination of both. Comments and timestamp are available for you to see I realize that from this thread point of view it seems I am changing the argument, that’s on me . It is not always the commenter is trying to the move the goal post sometimes things to do happen . —- To the actual point, It is not about whether nuclear is best option, I never compared it with any other option. It was not defense of nuclear , it was of project and costs management . Nuclear’s costs cannot be baselined by costs at GA , every developed country is doing it half the costs or less. With respect to “projected” gains are already realized in Taishan, yes it is china but that does not make EDF components being built in Europe faster or, state subsidies can make projects cheaper not faster . France and other countries have proven track record of building plants . Citing one outlier with brand new tech plant whose costs and time have ballooned is not valid argument . Reject or dislike nuclear for any number of reasons ideological, economic or environmental, but building a single plant after 40 years and saying it is too costly and slow is a dishonest argument .