Mmmhmm, grid scale deployment is not grid scale now? You are redefining terms, which means you don't work in the field and are not at all familiar with the field, yet you make broad and sweep proclamations of incredulity that have no factual backing, and we are supposed to trust you purely on judgement?

You cite last year's deployment rate, without noting a massive increase in planned deployments for this year. You neglect to cite the year before it, which was much smaller. You looking at a puck headed to the goal, under a continuous accelerant force, and saying, "the puck is here, therefore it will never hit the goal." That's a ridiculous thing to assert, because you don't hold that afactual standard for any other technology, just batteries, yet seem to understand that all other technologies have continually changing amounts of producition.

BTW, your link is "demand" and disagrees with most other sources.

> At our present production rates

That kind of says it all, doesn't it? You think that present production rates are indicative of future production rates, which is an insane statement.

If nuclear has 0 GW new this year, how do you think it could ever get to 2GW/year, right?

You have no reasons for these strange beliefs that defy data and trends, you just assert incredulity. It's completely irrational.