https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629618300598
"Contrary to a persistent myth based on erroneous methods, global data show that renewable electricity adds output and saves carbon faster than nuclear power does or ever has."
It is also not remotely economical, as of the latest LCOE (levelized cost of energy) nuclear is over 3x more expensive than wind and solar. This means a given dollar figure of investment will give 3x as much decarbonization if invested into wind and solar instead of nuclear.
https://www.lazard.com/media/450436/rehcd3.jpg
Nuclear has never even been economically viable, it is never been done, anywhere without massive government support:
"Most revealing is the fact that nowhere in the world, where there is a competitive market for electricity, has even one single nuclear power plant been initiated. Only where the government or the consumer takes the risks of cost overruns and delays is nuclear power even being considered."
renewbles are subsidized less:
https://htpr.cnet.com/p/?u=http://i.bnet.com/blogs/subsidies-2.bmp&h=Y8-1SgM_eMRp5d2VOBmNBw
And after all the subsidies nuclear has received, it is still not viable without subsidies, meanwhile wind and solar have many examples of subsidy-free projects
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/10/31/more-subsidy-free-solar-storage-for-the-uk/
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/subsidy-free-solar-comes-to-the-uk
With the overall lower subsidies to the renewables industry, they have transitioned to being viable without in a very short period of time, compared to nukes which literally remain subsidy junkies 50 years after their first suckle at the government teat.
Renewables even make better use of subsidy dollars; the same amount of subsidy invested in renewables vs nuclear will give many times more energy as a result.
"Global reported investment for the construction of the four commercial nuclear reactor projects (excluding the demonstration CFR-600 in China) started in 2017 is nearly US$16 billion for about 4 GW. This compares to US$280 billion renewable energy investment, including over US$100 billion in wind power and US$160 billion in solar photovoltaics (PV). China alone invested US$126 billion, over 40 times as much as in 2004. Mexico and Sweden enter the Top-Ten investors for the first time. A significant boost to renewables investment was also given in Australia (x 1.6) and Mexico (x 9). Global investment decisions on new commercial nuclear power plants of about US$16 billion remain a factor of 8 below the investments in renewables in China alone. "
p22 of https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/pdf/20180902wnisr2018-lr.pdf
The results of this is that in 2017 there was over 150 GW of wind and solar coming online, but nuclear:
"New nuclear capacity of 3.3 gigawatts (GW) in 2017 was outweighed by lost capacity of 4.6 GW."
https://energypost.eu/nuclear-power-in-crisis-welcome-to-the-era-of-nuclear-decommissioning/
Renewable energy is doing more for decarbonization than nuclear.
The CEO of the US's largest nuclear utility said it best:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2012/03/29/exelons-nuclear-guy-no-new-nukes/#139f364a3c5d
"I'm the nuclear guy," Rowe said. "And you won't get better results with nuclear. It just isn't economic, and it's not economic within a foreseeable time frame."
