You have to question the assumptions if the basic math at the beginning doesn't even seem right. They claim 440 reactors today need to scale to 15,000. That is a 34x increase.
So, just that one change pretty much blows most of their argument away, particularly if you assume that simply replacing many of the existing reactors would give a capacity increase due to turbine/heat efficiency improvements now done at modern plants.
So the scare mongering about having to build/replacing a reactor each day sounds like utter bollocks.
Yet, https://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-1/glbnrg.html says that 18% of worldwide generation is already nuclear. So, to get to 100% that would be ~5x, not 34x.
So, just that one change pretty much blows most of their argument away, particularly if you assume that simply replacing many of the existing reactors would give a capacity increase due to turbine/heat efficiency improvements now done at modern plants.
So the scare mongering about having to build/replacing a reactor each day sounds like utter bollocks.