> You seem to think that nuclear can scale from almost nothing to the hundreds of reactor per year that we need in a suitable amount of time.
I cite a previous example of a country starting several new reactors per year over a couple decades, with a mean build time of 6-7 years, and ending up with an electricity production which is mostly CO2-free.
It is not me thinking, or an hypothetical scenario, it's the history of France's commercial nuclear program between 1970 and 1990.
> There's a big contradiction in your two assessments here.[...]
> However, even with renewable's exponential growth to hundreds of GW deployed every year today, with exponential growth continuing from today, you seem to think it's not enough.
There's no contradiction. You simply chose to reframe my statement to make it say something else. My point is that despite "exponential growth to hundreds of GW deployed every year", countries with a strong wind/solar policy did not manage to curb their CO2 emissions per MWh to reasonable levels.
My concern is about the time it will take before these wind/solar policies have a significant effect on electricity CO2 emissions at the scale of a country. I don't really care about installed capacity.
So my point is, if 7 years is too long, what is a reasonable timeframe for effective CO2 reduction, and where did you see policies actually achieve that?