Ask HN: Is it realistic for nuclear power to replace fossil fuels?
A negative assessment of nuclear power's capacity to replace fossil fuels[1].
[1] http://energyskeptic.com/2017/nuclear-power/
[1] http://energyskeptic.com/2017/nuclear-power/
It also makes a neither-here-nor-there argument that nuclear power does not directly replace liquid fuels that are currently critical to transportation, but this is true of any electricity source.
The rest of the arguments presented are lousy ("too dangerous", "peak uranium", "low EROEI", and "breeder reactors are too dangerous" which is a repeat of "too dangerous"). There's no sign of peak uranium and it takes some real gymnastics to argue that nuclear power has low EROEI (energy returned on energy invested). The danger of nuclear power pales compared to unmitigated global warming or the widespread societal collapse that the Energy Skeptic site seems dedicated to prophesying. But if you've already made up your mind about conclusions, like the Energy Skeptic apparently has, you'll deploy whatever arguments you can scrape up to justify it. Even if they are poor arguments.
Related question. You mentioned that nuclear energy mitigates global warming. How much heat does a nuclear plant release compared to fossil fuel engines or plants? Or is the noteworthy advantage of nuclear energy in that it doesn't produce green house gases?
Current radiative forcing induced by anthropogenic CO2 emissions is on the order of 10^15 watts. Current direct thermal output from human combustion of fossil fuels is on the order of 10^13 watts, only 1% as much. That's why CO2 reduction is so important for limiting global temperature rise. Amplifying the warming effects of the sun makes fossil plants warm the globe much more than a nuclear plant that injects somewhat more waste heat into its local environs.