Some critics argue that the prestige of the Prize in Economic Sciences derives in part from its association with the Nobel Prizes, an association that has often been a source of controversy. Among them is the Swedish human rights lawyer Peter Nobel, a great-grandnephew of Alfred Nobel.[40]

Nobel accuses the awarding institution of misusing his family's name, and states that no member of the Nobel family has ever had the intention of establishing a prize in economics.[41] He explained that "Nobel despised people who cared more about profits than society's well-being", saying that "There is nothing to indicate that he would have wanted such a prize", and that the association with the Nobel prizes is "a PR coup by economists to improve their reputation".[40]

Maybe if you start heating your homes by burning car tires in your gardens. But otherwise, no. You are already so far behind the curve that economics really don't allow CO2 emission increases on a global significant level.

They don't even say that. They say emissions will peak which is en par with other institutions.

Sorry, fixed it.

Maybe you can get something out of here

I always use a factor of 1200 as approximation e.g. 1GW produses 1.2 TWh per year but thats very very rough.

Corruption

Its really easy to find this sources but I really dont know what you want to know. Maybe about being expensive? Slow?. There is literally tons of material out there... The other guy took the one thing that could maybe be argued about, CO2 emissions.

I only accept data that supports my worldview is a nice argument. Have fun not learning stuff.

Sometimed I am astonished that people post in a forum without being able to comprehend text

We find that larger-scale national nuclear attachments do not tend to associate with significantly lower carbon emissions while renewables do.

You misunderstood, this is an argument used by people to rationalize not changing their own behavior. If we would ban private jets they would rationalize with other "reasons".