In your own sources they say +6,9% for nuclear (61GW) the three percent is for hydro, probably because they are maxed out in that matter like everyone else. Th

In your own sources they say +6,9% for nuclear (61GW) the three percent is for hydro, probably because they are maxed out in that matter like everyone else. The direct comparison of solar/wind nameplate capacity with nuclear is extremely dishonest. They NEVER reach full capacity even with favorable weather and it's absolutely not comparable to nuclear if you don't have at least a decent amount of storage built alongside. They are still using coal/gas predominantly (around 70%) so renewables are still peanuts. They are building solar/wind to supplement their other sources, since they can't build anything else fast enough. None of their other sources of electricity generation has gone down since they started investing in renewables. So, it's not replacing anything, and it still technically can't anyway. In any case, they have 1408GW of installed solar + wind that generated 1836080 GWh (1836 TWh) of energy and they have 61GW of installed nuclear capacity that generated 450850 GWh (450 TWh) of energy. So, their solar & wind installation is 23 times larger but only generates about 4 times the amount of electricity, that isn't even reliable. It doesn't matter if they hit a speed bump in their nuclear rollout, it doesn't have to be as fast to deploy as renewables because it fundamentally doesn't give you the same things. It is a true replacement for coal, which renewables aren't at this stage.