> China has built four, one in just four years, in two roughly-parallel series. So the anti-nukes’ too-slow argument is bunk. But the pro-nuke team needs a learning curve barely demonstrated in another country to continue.

We have much more evidence of contruction being too slow (if that's what you mean); why is one example from the other side more convincing? Also, China is not directly comparable, being able to undemocratically externalize the welfare of residents, construction workers, and operators.

Also, the last sentence seems to agree that the evidence is weak ?

> the anti-nukes ... the pro-nuke

Maybe there are also people who just care about getting the best outcome, aren't on a team that has drawn a predetermined conclusion, and are working with the data.