So what's going on here? Why intentionally avoid those topics?
Because they are cheap, and nuclear is expensive?
Because they are being shut down politically in the US (and threatened in Germany by Merz) which makes their argument that nuclear is the test of pragmatic government ridiculous?
Do they have investments that mean this is them in sales mode and so lying (not just by omission) is considered okay?
What is cheap is nuclear, what is expensive (and requiring massive subsidies) are intermittent renewables.
And the article is about the mistake of getting out of nuclear.
Not about the mistake of going all-in on intermittent renewables, although those two mistakes are linked.
Mind you: intermittent renewables are not a mistake. Going all-in on them is.
This has not been the case for a while now.
Specifically German source to avoid questions about regional variation, from 2024; only "small rooftop" PV (both with and without batteries) even has an overlap with nuclear, and even then at the low end of the cost range for nuclear:
https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/press-releases/...
I suspect we're still going to get new nuclear reactors, but for the radioisotopes and not because of any questions about cost or supply diversity or dunkelflaute.
And if the author believes the non-mainstream claim that nuclear is cheaper than renewables then they could have stated that rather than mysteriously avoid the topic.
