Feasible measures that nuclear power cannot cope with the climate?

Michael Barnard, the chief strategy officer of the US TFIE Strategic Corporation, published an article that although nuclear power is a low-carbon energy source, it cannot be an effective emission reduction plan. The annual carbon emissions of electricity generation in the United States is about 1.7 billion tons (about 70% of which come from coal and 30% from natural gas), and it is estimated that by 2050, it will emit 52.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide. The carbon emissions per MWH during the whole life cycle produced by nuclear energy are only one-tenth of coal emissions and one-fourth of natural gas emissions. If nuclear power replaces coal power and natural gas power generation, approximately 1.4 billion metric tons of carbon emissions can be saved each year. However, it currently takes an average of 15 years to build a new nuclear power plant in the world, and it would take 30 years to replace coal and natural gas power plants. Moreover, the cost of nuclear power is relatively high, requiring 100 to 150 US dollars per MWh (about 10-15 cents per kWh). Wind power and solar power are built much faster than nuclear power, generating electricity for the first time within two years, and all coal and gas power plants can be replaced within 15 years (assuming solar power and wind power each account for 50%). If we compare the emissions reduction benefits in 30 years, wind energy and solar energy can reduce emissions by about 33 billion tons, and nuclear energy can reduce emissions by 11 billion tons. Moreover, wind energy and solar energy are much cheaper than nuclear energy. Currently, unsubsidized onshore wind and solar power prices are lower than US$40 per MWh (4 cents per kWh) or even as low as US$20 per MWh, which is 2.5 to 7.5 times cheaper than nuclear power.