How about 'Nuclear' instead? Nuclear doesn't generate CO2, the thing you fear the most. But wait, it's not in line with the POLITICS, now is it? Heh, yeah, pointing out the obvious again. I think I prefer FREEDOM.
Okay, I'll take the bait and try to explain.
Is your idea of FREEDOM being required to get your electricity from a single Japanese company who build and run a massively expensive and potentially lethal generation facility on your doorstep, which is liable to catastrophic failure (or even non-catastrophic failure) - one bad glitch in a nuclear power station and a million people have no electricity until it's fixed. One really really bad glitch and a million people probably won't ever have to worry about the electricity supply (or anything else) ever again. And when they're the only game it town they set the prices at whatever they want. The wonderful Hinckley C has a guarantee that they will get £92.50 per Megawatt hour, index linked, for the next 35 years. UK electricity companies are currently paying under £40 for French nuclear power. Large-scale wind currently costs around £50/MWh. Hinckley will cost UK consumers £50 billion more than it needs to. And you will pay it whether you want to or not. That's FREEDOM!
Not my idea of FREEDOM, but hey, whatever floats your boat.
Or maybe FREEDOM is having a large network of connected small-scale, varied, renewable generators with a range of doorstep and locally-ish storage to smooth things, so you have the FREEDOM to actually use electrical appliances when you want.
And on a related point - "Nuclear doesn't generate CO2" - only true-ish at the point of generation. Over the lifetime of a reactor, once you include the necessary construction, mining, refining, decommissioning and waste-disposal as well, then Nuclear generates a lot of CO2. Depending on the concentration of the ore it can easily exceed the lifetime CO2 outputs of every know current type of renewable. So, no, not a magic wand solution either.