See, most energy consumed is actually not consumed as electricity but for heat, for traffic etc. Nuclear power produces a mere 13%-14% of the worlds energy (les

See, most energy consumed is actually not consumed as electricity but for heat, for traffic etc. Nuclear power produces a mere 13%-14% of the worlds energy (less than hydro power btw.) and by no means can replace all uses of coal (or generally fossil fuel) unless you pop a nuclear plant in every city or village. A lot of coal plants in germany for example produce electricity as well as heat for buildings - something that a nuclear plant can in theory do, but it's just not something you'd want to stick to the edge of the city. If you want to save on CO2 and energy, there's far better ways than building new coal or nuclear plants: reduce energy consumption and - most importantly - reduce it where it can be cheaply done. Go to developing countries and replace inefficient stoves, air conditioning and fridges. It's dead cheap compared to what we can squeeze out here - but it's a political nightmare. It's simple to support buying an efficient freezer in germany or better insulation for buildings or solar collectors on the roof, it's very hard to do so in africa. I agree that that solar and wind are currently no perfect solution and alone probably will never be, but that's no reason not to invest money and do research. The progress that has been made so far is impressive. We're nerds, we all love a good challenge.