In The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists een stuk over kernenergie, SMRs en waarom de deal van 22 landen tijden de klimaatconferentie in Dubai, om kernenergie in 2050 te verdrievoudigen, onzinnig en schadelijk is: "[I]t’s a terrible signal. It’s like Trumpism enters energy policy: It’s a pledge that has nothing to do with reality, and it doesn’t matter. It is giving you the impression that it is feasible, that it is possible. And all that completely dilutes the attention and capital that are urgently needed to put schemes into place that work."
Lees het lange artikel, zeker de moeite waard.

Vooruit, nog een fragment:

Bulletin: If it’s not feasible [de verdrievoudiging van kernenergie in 2050, Laka], does the nuclear pledge impede other climate actions that are urgently needed then?

Mycle Schneider: That’s a good question. I think it’s a terrible signal, indeed. It’s like Trumpism enters energy policy: It’s a pledge that has nothing to do with reality, and it doesn’t matter. It is giving you the impression that it is feasible, that it is possible. And all that completely dilutes the attention and capital that are urgently needed to put schemes into place that work. And it doesn’t start with renewables, that’s very important to stress. It starts with sufficiency, efficiency, storage, and demand response. Only later comes renewable energy.
But these options are all on the table. They’re all demonstrated to be economic and competitive. That’s not the case with nuclear energy. It’s a pledge that has no realistic foundation that is taking away significant funding and focus. It used to be negligible funding. Up until a few years back, we were talking at most tens of millions of dollars. Now, we’re talking of tens of billions that are going into subsidizing nuclear energy, especially as I said existing nuclear power plants.