[quotemstr]

The spectacular success of nuclear power where it's been tried combined with equally spectacular failures to rebase first world power grids on renewables should have prompted you to question your assumptions by now.

One must conclude the problem lies not in splitting the atom, but educating physicists.

You're a scientist, right? Can you think of any evidence that even in principle might prompt you to change your mind on nuclear?

[uecker]

There is no spectacular success of nuclear power. It provides an irrelevant fraction of overall power in the world and time and money needed to scale it up would be immense. The France's nuclear industry is an economic disaster and the EDF has been fully re-nationalized (and during the time it was semi-private there was plan to close 17 plants by 2025). The rollout of renewables works very nicely in Europe, there is no "grid failure". I am a physicist, I draw my information from looking at the underlying data, not the press.

[quotemstr]

Looks pretty successful to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#/media...

If over half a country's electricity production is "irrelevant", I'm not sure what would be relevant.

Call it a disaster if you'd like. Lights turn on. Meltdowns aren't happening. The French pay 50% less than Germans per kWh.

You do you, but don't sit there and claim you're looking at the data. You can either interface with the real world or live in a fantasy universe and fail. Up to you.

[uecker]

The electricity price in France is artificially kept low, it does not say much about the cost of nuclear. Globally renewables have overtaken coal in electricity production in the first half of 2025. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2rz08en2po Nuclear is not close to this.