That's not at all what they said. The point is France have a bunch of reactors approaching the same level of wear, and by building a few more and staggering the maintenance,they'd spread the maintenance out and avoid this problem for the future.
Show me on the histogram the tight cluster of reactor start dates representing the outages.
The 100% consistent lying about everything from nuclear proponents makes trusting statements like 'we will definitely do things safely if the rules are relaxed' pretty hard to swallow.
You have it backwards. The evidence for a cluster is the cluster now in need of maintenance, and it's the clustering by maintenance cycles and how they occurred which matters, not start date.
Start date is by no means the only thing affecting later clustering of maintenance need. That's also easily achieved by for example deferring maintenance too long, or structuring of past maintenance cycles.
Understanding how to avoid maintenance cycles syncing up is critical for any risk management of large systems.
This is entirely separate from whether or not one supports nuclear, and an issue relevant for any type of generation. Or indeed managing any kind of system that includes any physical plants or machinery at all.
How that affects whether you see a given type of plant as viable is an entirely separate issue.
...Which is nothing to do with the grandparent comment which blamed it on not building more reactors and claiming it was because they were the same age.
