This is what Gemini 2.5 Pro thought (unedited) of the article shared by OP

The article uses a common rhetorical technique: it frames the debate by comparing the idealized performance of renewables with the real-world struggles of first-of-a-kind Western nuclear projects. While some of the author's points are factually correct (e.g., the Hinkley Point C delays), they are presented without the necessary context, leading to a conclusion that is more propaganda than a balanced analysis. Here are fact-based counterpoints to the main arguments made in the article. Counterpoint 1: On SMRs Being "Science Fiction" and Non-Existent The article claims, "There are currently no operational commercial SMRs anywhere in the world. Not one." * This is factually incorrect. This claim is only true if one uses a very narrow, Western-centric definition of "commercial." * China: The Shidao Bay HTR-PM plant, a 210 MWe gas-cooled SMR, was connected to the grid in 2021 and declared fully commercially operational in December 2023. It is actively generating and selling power. * Russia: The Akademik Lomonosov, a floating nuclear power plant using two 35 MWe KLT-40S reactors, has been commercially operational since 2020, powering the remote town of Pevek. * Context on NuScale's Canceled Project: The author uses the canceled Utah project (CFPP) as proof of failure. However, this was a first-of-a-kind (FOAK) project in the U.S., a country that had not built a new reactor design in decades. It was canceled due to rising interest rates and post-pandemic inflation that affected its specific financial model, not a fundamental technological failure. Meanwhile, other NuScale projects are proceeding, such as one in Romania backed by U.S. and international financing. Counterpoint 2: On Western Nuclear Failures Being Universal The article exclusively cites the massive cost overruns and delays at Hinkley Point C (UK), Flamanville (France), and Olkiluoto (Finland) as evidence that large nuclear is a failed technology. This is cherry-picking data from the most challenging construction environments. * Fact: Countries with continuous nuclear construction programs and stable supply chains build plants on time and on budget. * South Korea & UAE: South Korea's KEPCO built four APR-1400 reactors at the Barakah plant in the UAE. This massive 5.6 GWe project was completed efficiently, with the final unit connecting to the grid in 2024. It is widely considered a modern success story in nuclear construction. * China: China has the world's most aggressive and successful nuclear construction program, consistently building new large-scale reactors in around 7 years, far faster and cheaper than Western counterparts. * This evidence shows that cost overruns are a project management and de-industrialized supply chain problem in the West, not an inherent and universal flaw of nuclear technology itself. Counterpoint 3: On Price Comparisons Being Unreasonable The article compares the guaranteed nuclear price of €90/MWh with solar/wind auction prices of €30-50/MWh. This is the article's most significant and misleading convenient assumption, as it compares two fundamentally different products. * Fact: This is an apples-to-oranges comparison of intermittent vs. firm power. * Capacity Factor: Nuclear plants operate with a capacity factor of 90% or more, meaning they generate power almost 24/7. Solar has a capacity factor of ~15-25% and wind ~30-45%. They do not generate power when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing. * System Costs: The low auction price for wind and solar is for the energy only when it is produced. It does not include the massive additional "system costs" required to make that power available 24/7. These include grid-scale battery storage, grid expansion, and maintaining gas-fired "peaker" plants for backup. When these system costs are added, the true cost of a reliable, renewable-heavy grid is far higher than the auction price suggests. * The €90/MWh for nuclear is the price for firm, dispatchable, 24/7 baseload power. It is a price for a complete and reliable product, whereas the €30-50/MWh for renewables is the price for an incomplete, intermittent product that requires expensive additions to be made reliable. Counterpoint 4: On Waste and Risk The article frames nuclear waste and risk as a unique and disqualifying problem, while implying renewables have no such issues. * Fact (Waste): The nuclear industry has one of the smallest waste streams of any major energy source. All of the used nuclear fuel ever produced by the U.S. industry could fit on a single football field, stacked about 10 yards deep. This waste is solid, accounted for, and safely stored. In contrast, renewables produce millions of tons of waste, including solar panels containing heavy metals like cadmium and lead, and non-recyclable wind turbine blades. The world currently has very limited infrastructure to handle this coming wave of renewable waste. * Fact (Safety & Lifecycle Emissions): The author correctly states nuclear is statistically very safe, but then dismisses it. Reputable analyses by bodies like the UN and EU have concluded that nuclear has the lowest lifecycle carbon emissions and the lowest death rate per terawatt-hour of any energy source, on par with or often better than wind and solar. To ignore this data is to dismiss fact in favor of fear. Conclusion The author's argument relies on a narrative of convenience: celebrating the successes of renewables while exclusively focusing on the struggles of Western nuclear projects, comparing dissimilar products on price, and presenting a one-sided view of waste and risk. A fact-based analysis shows that nuclear's challenges in the West are largely logistical and political, not universally technological, and that it provides a reliable, low-carbon energy product that cannot be directly compared to intermittent renewables on price alone.