Actually, I fully addressed that point: intermittent sources are not bad for nuclear, they are bad for everyone and everything, including other intermittent sources, because of their intermittency. This is a problem of the intermittent sources, not of the sources they interfere with.

Economically, they only get to be bad for nuclear power economics if you put silly laws in place that unreasonably favor the intermittents. There is nothing inherent about this. The fix is easy: don't put silly laws in place. If you have them, remove them.

Pretty much the entire world is doing nuclear + (intermittent) renewables.

Are you seriously claiming that all of them haven't figured out the economics of this?

Your "perspective" on new build nuclear is noted, but it does not have much perspective. Myopic would be more accurate. All the projects you mention except one were EPRs. The EPR that its manufacturer discontinued, because it was too difficult to build. Hmm...

All of these projects were FOAK builds, aka "prototypes". FOAK builds are well known to be more difficult to build than regular NOAK builds. Because they are prototypes. With the Vogtles, they started building before some of the plans were fully finished and it turned out those plans weren't actually buildable. Ooops. This is obviously not going the happen on the 2nd build. Because you now have something that actually was built, so it is very obviously buildable.

Furthermore, all of these reactors were (or are being) built in countries that had not built nuclear reactors for some time and thus had little to no institutional knowledge, skilled personnel, or experience.

And no, these projects did not "fail". Finnland is very satisfied with its new reactor, which has already lowered electricity prices and achieved 88% capacity factor in its first year. (Although IMHO it is a bit too large for such a small country).

The EPR as a design has failed. China, for example, has also built two of them, and decided against building more units of the type, opting instead to standardize on a variant of the Westinghouse AP-1000 and a home-grown type, the Hualong One. Again, EDF itself has also discontinued the model, opting instead for the vastly simplified EPR2 for future builds.

The Vogtles are now producing electricity. The prices had to be raised in Georgia to pay for these problematic builds. To now just below 15 cents / kWh. Which is still less than half of the price of electricity in California at over 30 cents / kWh.

(See: https://poweroutage.us/electricity-rates )

Note: the worst-run nuclear projects are still better than the best renewable projects.

And the Vogtles went so "badly" that they are now looking to finish the VC Summer plant that was abandoned (two more AP-1000s). Poland is also building AP-1000s, as is Ukraine.

And yes, China now does a pretty good job of building. Because they have experience. Their first two AP-1000 reactors also took around 10 years, not that much better than the Vogtles. But now they have learned how to do it and are building their adapted and up-rated CAP-1400 in 5 years for $3.5 billion. Same modern, passively safe reactors. And the red-tape is apparently worse than in the West.

And of course, when Germany was still actually building reactors, it built them in the same sort of time-frame, for similar amount of money. The clue is to build a proven design, build a bunch of them and overlap the builds.

We know how to build nuclear reactors quickly and cheaply. We just have to start doing it again.

And no, the liftoff document is quite accurate. "Comically biased" just means that Reality™ does not conform to your prejudices.