But your argument seems like a straw man to me, as nobody is proposing that dichotomy. As long as renewable energy sources can't stand as a viable substitute in

But your argument seems like a straw man to me, as nobody is proposing that dichotomy. As long as renewable energy sources can't stand as a viable substitute in terms of costs (economic, environmental, power per unit land, etc) and can't cope with an increasing energy demand, I don't see the need of relinquishing an energy source that has proven viable by all those standards and moreover is pretty safe.