ArticleScientific reports2026
Marginal effect of clean energy, nuclear energy-related R&D investment, energy security risk, and policy uncertainty on the environment in the USA.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Environmental problems have been attracting the interest of all relevant parties because of the increasing negative effects on humanity. At this point, further clean, especially nuclear, energy consumption (EC) is seen as a strategic option to combat environmental deterioration (ED). Because clean energy, nuclear energy-related R&D investments (NRD), energy security risk (ESR), as well as increasing economic policy uncertainty (EPU) and trade policy uncertainty (TPU) in recent times have the potential to affect clean EC, this research uncovers the contribution of nuclear EC (NEC) in combating ED by considering also gross domestic product (GDP) and renewable EC (REC) along with the interaction terms of NEC with NRD, ESR, EPU, and TPU. In this vein, the study focuses on the USA case as the biggest economy and leading country in NEC, applies the kernel regularized least squares (KRLS) approach on data from 1974 through 2022, and uses carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the main analysis and ecological footprint (EFP) in checking robustness as an ED indicator. The empirical results show that (i) NEC (REC & EPU) is completely ineffective (beneficial) to reduce CO2 emissions; (ii) GDP, ESR, and TPU is almost completely unhelpful to decline CO2 emissions; (iii) the interaction of NRD and EPU with NEC provide a decrease in CO2 emissions; (iv) KRLS approach successfully estimates variations in CO2 emissions around 95%; (v) some variables (e.g., GDP & TPU) have a varying effect across percentiles, whereas others don’t. Thus, the study reveals the efficiency of certain factors (e.g., REC, EPU, interaction of NEC with NRD & EPU) on CO2 emissions, whereas GDP, NEC, ESR, & TPU can’t be helpful to protect the environment. Accordingly, the study argues policy implications (e.g., allocating free/low cost land, ensuring low cost financing support, removing customs-related barriers to import relevant components to install new clean EC capacity in short term, trying to nationally produce clean EC components in long term, ensuring long-term security of rare earth minerals, as well as preventing the displacement between REC and NEC through simultaneously supporting both REC and NEC to appropriately allocating incentives) for USA policymakers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.