> The subtitle of the paper is "Diversion from climate action" without any explanation. This trick is pulled off by claiming nuclear diverts investment from so

> The subtitle of the paper is "Diversion from climate action" without any explanation. This trick is pulled off by claiming nuclear diverts investment from solar/wind, counting on the reader to forget that one could just as easily say nuclear diverts investment from coal. That Germany had to increase their reliance on coal after shutting down nuclear, and that unlike wind and solar, coal and nuclear can both serve as reliable base-load power, shows how dishonest the nuclear vs. wind/solar framing is.