> There was no claim of current growth. There was a claim of reevaluation.

Of course there is. It says just after the claim of reevaluation: "is increasingly starting to view it as a reliable source of power that allows for greater energy security"

> The article is an interview with the former president of the French parliament.

The article is an interview with an obviously drunk person who talks of cabals and sects :D

> False

Wow, much crediblé. Now google tarif bleu. I've mentioned it twice. You didn't even read that or did you and you ignored it because you know I'm right?

> It takes them 10+ years to build a prototype of a brand new reactor design

As I said...there are always excuses in nuclear. HPC and Flamanville are not EPR prototypes. But you know where prototypes just deliver? In renewable tech.

> However, outliers have always existed,

Yeah, those weird, weird outliers. All of them in countries with proper safety standards. Meanwhile, in countries with corrupted ones, nuclear reactors shoot up as if it's some water tower they're building. I'm sure that's just some kind of coincidence.

Also, stretching the average measurement 70 years in the past where it's been fashionable to build reactors is ridiculous. It doesn't say anything about the present time.

Btw, it's hilarious like all the links you delivered here have already been clicked by me at some point in the past. Are you one of those Nuklearia fanboys?

> False. Coal burning increased in 2021 and 2022. Went down a little in 2023 due to the recession-induced reduction in consumption. Recession caused by high energy prices. The irony!

Everything about that is false :D

https://i.imgur.com/HjSIcbe.jpeg

https://i.imgur.com/C7rUzdO.jpeg

https://www.bdew.de/service/daten-und-grafiken/bdew-strompre...

> Sorry, that's silly. Had we kept nuclear, that renewable capacity would instead have replaced coal.

There is no single factual reason why we'd have less coal today with nuclear. As I said: we replaced what we lost with nuclear years ago with renewables, and the reason we keep coal around is because of jobs. You can read that, googling the commission tasked with the phaseout. The commission's name is: "Commission on Growth, Structural Change and Employment" :D

> Yes they are. Their current plans are

The current reality is that they delivered 4% less last year, as I have shown in one more link you didn't read above. Also, they cancelled some of those planned reactors too. Even if they would triple a tiny bit, it wouldn't be MASSIVE compared to the MASSIVE expansion of renewables. You can spend every Dollar once, and China decided that it's rather worth spending it on renewables.

> Sadly, I am reading your links, which continue to be entirely irrelevant.

Funny though because I've shown you several times over that you didn't. Just above this paragraph is another one. Why are you lying?

> Once again: one project by one of the many companies getting into the SMR space goes sideways, and for you, somehow, the entire field is a "debacle". No it's not.

I can understand that wasting massive amounts of taxpayer money is no debacle for a nuclear apologist (or should I say "sectist", now that you made that fashionable with that hilarious conspiracy interview?), however for the rest of the taxpayers it is. NuScale was the poster child for SMRs within your cult, and it failed spectacularly.

Come back when you have actually read what I write.