You bitched about subsidies for nuclear while ignoring all of the subsidies for solar/wind/coal/gas. I think nuclear, solar and wind should be subsidized. You're against that.

Building more reactor means France isn't backing away from nuclear. Why is that hard for you to understand?

Let me get this straight. Subsidies for clean nuclear energy - bad. Subsides for intermittent renewables, coal and gas good.

And France is building 6 more reactors. That's not backing away.

Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. We're not going to stop bringing it up because we don't want other countries to repeat German failures. Germany 366 g CO2 per kWh, France 35 g CO2 per kWh.

Yes an F. Germany failed. They are at 366 g CO2 per kWh.

If a scummy student cannot compete based on merit they will often resort to sabotage. And it's not just compsci. I heard stories of medical students at John Hopkins burning other students notes with the goal of obtaining a better residency.

For solar and wind? Yes solar and wind require significantly more raw materials than for nuclear. And significantly more than that to overcome the day-night cycle. And significantly more than that to overcome seasonal intermittency. All issues you antinuclear DF's handwave away.

Projection

Germans love coal don't they. And you know what has a significantly greater iconological impact than nuclear fuel production? The mining for required for solar/wind/batteries. The amount of raw materials used is significantly higher meaning the ecological impact is greater. The amount of land required for each of those is greater too.

but keep telling me that nuclear is too expensive.

There is a surprising amount of information that is stored in Excel sheets. Most governments, business, universities, etc run on Excel. It's also something Microsoft hasn't broken.

Funny thing word sucks balls. Word is worse than 25 year old competitors such as Word Perfect, but because it is bundled with Excel, Word has became the default word processor for most people.

All of the highly radioactive isotopes have long since decayed. This was, as always, more antinuclear fearmongering.

Exam are supposed to grade knowledge and ability in a subject--not handwriting speed. One of my Abstract Algebra professors made his timed tests so long that I couldn't have finished if i was copying from a solution manual. Math is one subject where a more flexible timelimit could be beneficial.

It was easier to ace the take home graduate exams than super large timed exams.

Wow. You do realize that solar and wind are intermittent? That means when the sun isn't shinning and the wind isn't blowing they don't work.

If solar and wind are so cheap and fast why did Germany fail after spending 500 billion euros and 15 years? Well they failed because solar and wind are intermittent.

What does Australia currently use to overcome solar and wind intermittency? Its coal and methane.

Also do you know the single largest cost of a nuclear power plant? It's interest. That is a solvable problem. Remove the interest and nuclear becomes competitive. Also grids with nuclear tend to pay less in energy costs.

Why does it have to be either or? We can build all three at the same time. You oppose nuclear for emotional reasons so you assume everyone who supports nuclear opposes solar and wind.

So build solar and wind. But also build nuclear. If you don't build nuclear, solar/wind intermittency will be overcome with coal and methane. And Australia will fail to decarbonize.

Not my guy. He wasn't serious about building nuclear power. So what? His opposition wasn't serious about decarbonize Australia either.

And opposing nuclear energy means you are prolonging the use of fossil fuels. Intermittency is a real issue that you ignore.

See Germany. They spent 500 billion euros and 15 years only to fail.

They are current at 395 g CO2 per kWh.

Meanwhile France is at 36 g CO2 per kWh.

36 is less than 395. Every rational minded person should look at those two metrics and conclude nuclear energy is going to be required.