[Kon5ole]

>Could you elaborate on why this investment is an argument against nuclear?

It is not an argument against nuclear, it is an argument against the claim that nuclear is safe.

If something requires a large staff of skilled workers and very expensive equipment in order to prevent harmful effects, it is of course not safe - wouldn't you agree?

Solar and wind require skilled people too for sure, but not in order to prevent a catastrophe, which was my point here.

[bluefirebrand]

The type of catastrophe that solar and wind need to prevent are "There's no sun/wind for more days than we planned for" which absolutely can be devastating and no amount of skilled people can fix

[Kon5ole]

>The type of catastrophe that solar and wind need to prevent are "There's no sun/wind for more days than we planned for" which absolutely can be devastating

Absolutely, and with renewables that's part of the consideration from the start since everyone is well aware of it.

What you describe is in fact one of the major downsides to nuclear, since they generate so much energy in one point of failure.

Having a (ahem) redundant array of inexpensive devices generating power is much less likely to suffer abrupt and large losses such as the one europe suffered just last week, when their largest reactor went offline for a few days. https://yle.fi/a/74-20061159