> You obviously can't evaluate by the outcomes, because the reevaluation is still in process

Things are always "in the process" or "being reevaluated" around nuclear. Meanwhile, global warming is on the way and faster here than a single nuclear reactor is constructed, even if you start building today.

Meanwhile, renewables are already there, build in 1–2 years and are getting better and cheaper every year.

> On the other hand, 22 countries just pledged to triple nuclear output by 2050 at COP28, so just a little over a month ago

Are there any repercussions if they don't deliver, or how is this relevant?

Let's take a closer look at your links there:

> Speaking of Italy, they aren't there yet, but have just made getting back into nuclear official government policy.

Italy doesn't have the funds for any significant nuclear project. The nuclear meme the ruling parties spread is highly popular within the right wing parties throughout Europe and, just like Poland (where the meme goes back to the time of Socialism), every serious person knows: nothing at all will come of it.

> Germany, of course, remains a basket case, even though a majority of its citizens now oppose the "Atomausstieg".

No they don't.

There was a rush around the time the last one closed. With the biggest tabloid BILD and the opposition (which consist mainly of the party which is responsible for the shutdown) shouting useless claims to fire up people who are unhappy with the Government. Today, just like before: nobody cares about nuclear anymore and the only polls suggesting that there might be some kind of support for the cause come from Civey and are being paid by Nuklearia. A small lobby club of former nuclear engineers and their Twitter-friends from the right-wing AfD bubble.

> The UK government just announced a massive (to 4x) nuclear expansion this month (January 2024).

I'm sure that after the elections and with the complete mess that is HPC, there will be not a single new reactor being build in the UK.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/cost-of-uks-flagship-nuclear-pro...

> France removed its legal requirement to reduce nuclear to less than 50% last year, and just committed to building 14 new reactors (up from only 6 just 2 months ago).

I wonder where the money for that might come from especially after the failure of EDF and the fact that despite subsidizing every single watt of nuclear energy by taxpayer money (tarif bleu) they now even have to rise the prices https://www.euractiv.com/section/electricity/news/france-fin...

But sure, something has to be done since their existing fleet is rotting away and they have not diversified anything. Let's hope those old reactors will hold up for another decade because we all know: France can't build faster.

> Unlike what some people think, France was not very pro-nuclear the last few decades, in fact nuclear was being actively sabotaged.

Yeah...no. That's bs.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/750035/france-opinion-su...

> That has changed. A lot has changed since the Ukraine war revealed the dirty little secret of Germany's "Energiewende", also known nowadays as the Gazprom-Wende.

What secret is this supposed to be? Because Germany got rid of Russian gas and gas prices went down again?

Or do you mean the secret that France still supports the invasion in Ukraine through their nuclear deals?

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/energies/article/2023/03/12/french...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-023-01228-5

> Yes, China is going for renewables. That's because China goes for everything. Including more coal. Yes, they are building out renewables, but that's because they have little to none at present

They expand it REALLY fast though https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/29/china-wind-sol...

Faster than anyone on this planet. Meanwhile, their nuclear expansion is negligible. If your argument of putting all of them in one basket would be right, they'd have to build much more nuclear than they do and plan to do. But just like any reasonable investor, they're not stupid. Nuclear is a waste of money.

> India is also planning (and on track) to triple their nuclear generating capacity, though not by 2050, but by 2031.

I wonder how well this will go in the future...

https://www.rosatom.ru/en/press-centre/opinion/alexey-zhukov...

Quite funny that in the nuclear bubble Rosatom is good while Gazprom is bad.

> Ukraine is in talks with Rolls Royce to upgrade existing coal-fired power stations with nuclear reactors. The ones Rolls Royce is planning to build in a factory.

People dare to talk about SMRs after the Nuscale debacle? And especially in Ukraine where the fate of the whole country isn't even clear? Interesting. How many of those did RR build already or is their plan to test the whole thing in Ukraine because they're used to nuclear fallouts?