Quote:
Originally Posted by ken0042
Replace nuclear with hydro, and I will agree with you. deGrasse Tyson's point was that the sun produces more than enough power to provide for our electricity needs; even if those needs increased 100 fold. (Which is possible if we switch from gas heat to electric.)
I just don't see why nuclear has to be one of the options. It's a messy solution when cleaner solutions are also available.
Then comes the political aspect. Do we allow North Korea, Iran, etc to have nuclear power? Outside of the odd James Bond movie, I've never heard of a terrorist using hydro or solar as a weapon of mass destruction.
|
You could blow up a damn and kill a lot of people.
Hydro is also a dirty, dirty power source on a large scale. You destroy massive ecosystems to build big hydro. Run of the river hydro is better but not scalable.
Something like the Hoover Damn would never be built today because of habitat destruction. In fact damn removal to restore rivers is occurring in BC and Washington to help salmon stocks.
Hydro is not a guilt free solution either. Nuclear to me seems like the only viable approach that can take us to where we need to be on the next 30 years. Even the guy who started Greenpeace jumped on the nuke bandwagon.