In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

8bn/unit is successful considering fla3 was 23bn. 8y/unit is successful, several in parallel with 1y distance, considering fla3/vogtle took about 20y.

Yes. It is a success.

Korea also announced they plan to build two additional reactors domestically by 2038

I've seen what a success Energiewende was. Really top notch execution to spend more than the entire french fleet and after 25y to have much worse emissions, while planning to have 80GW gas firming per Fraunhofer ISE to cover under generation periods

No. They are afraid to pollute downstream. Nuclear doesn't require that much water. Worstcase you can even deploy dry cooling or wastewater like palo verde

> There are some very recent arsenic spills

Indeed, but nothing comparable to the spills at Chernobyl or Fukushima.

> Nuclear fuel can be recycled

Only once, and France, an industrial leader in this area, only manages to recycle 10% of its reactor fuel this way.

> It's mostly not done because it's cheaper not to, just like in renewables

No, that's completely false. Closing the fuel cycle was considered the Holy Grail as early as the 1950s, because everyone knew that uranium deposits would greatly limit the expansion of nuclear power. The industrialization of reactors of the most promising architecture (fast neutron-breeders, sodium-cooled) as well as others, attempted at great length and expense in many countries, failed everywhere ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Notable_reacto... ), there is no ready-to-deploy model of such reactor, and this approach has been virtually abandoned, replaced by the pursuit of fusion.

> The danger was known based on multiple data points

Before the major nuclear accident at Fukushima, the formulas for calculating seismic risk (the tsunami was triggered by an earthquake) were incorrect because they neglected very old earthquakes. The cause was an inability to properly assess the risk. This inability was not universal, as some (for example, Y. Hirai in the case of the Onagawa nuclear power plant, which was closer to the earthquake's epicenter and withstood the earthquake: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant#20...) did take the necessary precautions.

> They acknowledged evacuation was not necessary in the way it was implemented.

Arms-chair tacticians are verbose after the fact, but nowhere to be found when the problem was an ongoing challenge and experts described the worst-case scenario. The testimony of the prime minister at the time, referenced above, is perfectly clear.

> Capacity factor is important to understand how much firming you need.

No value is prohibitive, as there are many other pertinent parameters.

for nuclear at least we know what final result may look like, in France. We know both costs and timeline to achieve decarbonization. We also know more or less the same about Germany which took a different path, starting from 2000 under red-greens and schroder and continued by cdu. To me it sounds much more magical to hope DE will have anytime soon abundant cheap hydrogen to firm it's 80GW+ of gas plants according to Fraunhofer's ISE plan.

> capacity factors

Deeming dispatchable power necessary was valid as long as the technical means (long-distance, high-capacity transmission, smart grids, energy storage, network management software capable of reacting quickly enough and optimizing the system, voltage stabilization and current frequency synthesis tools, etc.) that would have allowed for a mostly non-dispatchable way to generate electricity were too expensive, insufficient, or simply nonexistent.

Now these means exist, and experts assert that it is no longer necessary to deploy a large proportion of dispatchable generation capacity. Therefore, from a technical standpoint, an electrical system based on renewables with the largest resources (wind and solar, which are not dispatchable) is feasible: https://cleantechnica.com/2022/07/25/will-renewable-energy-d...

> compare to solar projects

"With the cost of storing electricity at $65/MWh, storing 50% of a day’s solar generation for use during the night-time hours adds $33/MWh to the total cost of solar. The global average price of solar in 2024 was $43/MWh. Turning this cheap daytime electricity into a dispatchable profile that is closer to an actual demand profile, would therefore result in a total electricity cost of $76/MWh." https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/how-cheap-is-batter...

The total cost of nuclear power, even when building and managing waste without exceeding the budget, even without accidents, even without uranium supply problems..., is already much higher than that.

He's dead, Jim.

> 2- announcement > plans will probably accelerate

Indeed, let's see if the current trend will be reversed: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa...

> Why should I read a nonsensical antinuclear article by a rando on the internet

It is sourced (or you may pinpoint what isn't).

> when there are official numbers from court of auditors?

The referenced article quotes thems!

> even if you bump them by 50%, it'll still be cheaper than german EEG expenditure alone

The cost of the energy transition in Germany is sometimes cited as €300 billion, €500 billion, or even €1.5 trillion.

These figures are worthless because no reputable source publishes a specific figure along with its scope (some aspects of the investments needed for the electricity grid are independent of the energy source) and at least a timeframe.

These figures are actually projections published by various sources, covering distant timeframes (2050, etc.) and encompassing the entire electricity system (including non-renewable energy sources).

We had the same sort of propaganda in France, then EDF (Big Chief of the French nuclear sector) boss stated in public that about 50% of the projected network-related costs are not tied to renewables ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEdQz3hGlf0&t=328s ).

> "This nuclearization lasted approximately 40 years." But messmer plan took much less.

Nope: https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/messmer-pl...

> Numbers are known in both cases and you clearly want to ignore them.

The afore-referenced articles states and sources facts and data. You don't.

> Talking about french prosperous period when DE is biggest EU economy

'Prosperous' is more-or-less 'density', not extension. This past prosperity (massively benefitting to the Messmer Plan) is an historical indeniable fact ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trente_Glorieuses ).

> gas plants > hydrogen when merely 25% mix is already worse economically than failed nuclear projects like Vogtle

This is not valid as in this context those hydrogen plants are prototypes, while Vogtle (and other recent projects aiming at building nuclear reactors) are theoritically mastered since the 1970's (Messmer Plan...).

> The announced gas plants dont match the numbers demanded by Fraunhofer, mostly because EU rules dont allow that. So basically germany is stuck in a strange position where it needs firming but it cannot build it.

Indeed, and it may imply that more coal will be burnt. This is ridiculous.

> magical cheap hydrogen

This is indeed a bet, but a non-inept one ( https://www.spglobal.com/energy/en/news-research/latest-news... ), especially as the amount of electricity overproduced by renewables, reflected by episodes of low or even negative spot prices, is constantly increasing.