But earlier in the article, the author said:

"There is one thing almost all model calculations do agree on: Moving forward, the majority of electricity will be supplied by a mix of solar, biomass, wind and hydro power."

So if the majority of power will be non-nuclear, how is nuclear supposed to prevent inevitable global climate change? And why aren't we just pushing to go for 100% non-nuclear and non-fossil fuel energy? Why is that not an option?

In another part of the article, they say "Qvist believes the lower costs are the primary advantage offered by the smaller nuclear power plants."

So even according to this pro-nuclear consultant, the primary advantage of nuclear is not its ability to prevent inevitable global climate change.

There are some other important things this article does not touch on, one of them being the gross mismanagement of Chernobyl and Fukushima, and the record of nuclear power companies and corrupt regulators not taking safety seriously enough, leading to accidents.

You can have the best technology in the world, but when the companies managing these plants cut corners and don't prioritize safety the ostensibly wonderful technology might be broken, missing, inactive, or inadequate when its needed most. Fukushima and Chernobyl were cases in point.

I'd also take authoritative-sounding pronouncements on the safety of nuclear power in threads like these with a couple of grains of salt.

I remember paying close attention on HN when the Fukushima accident was under way, and there were plenty of people on HN and elsewhere swearing that the Fukushima reactor would never melt down, that it was designed to prevent just such a meltdown. It melted down nevertheless.