@waltercool
Don't know where you got your "hydro is not a reliable source" from, cause hydro and nuclear are pretty much the only day and night reliable sources of electricity that aren't fossil based.
I'm sure you'll say something to the effect of "you need rain", except there's a reason you build massive damns and artificial lakes for hydro plants, so you have insane amounts of water buildups to last you through droughts.

Depending on how you define reliable, and where you place them, solar and wind can be good too, but if you plan to power an entire country only with them, that ain't gonna work. They have their place, but I still want the reliable power plants on a constant standby.
There's a lot that can be done with battery storage, and I've heard about some promising projects, but unless you find a way to build good batteries out of only very common metals, like aluminium or iron, I still think it's a bad idea. We can't rely on rare earth elements or lithium to do the job. There won't be enough to go around.

The idea (agenda) to reduce carbon is fine in my book, my issue is with doing a top-down approach, instead of letting it naturally evolve as a bottom-up consequence of market forces.

As for nuclear, I'm 110% with you. There's nothing I'd want more than an increase in nuclear power. Have a Moore's law of nuclear power plants. A doubling of nuclear energy production every two years. That's what we need.