|
|
|
|
|
|
by dotancohen
3143 days ago
|
|
|
It should be made clear that Hydroelectric has made an order of magnitude more land uninhabitable for human habitation than has nuclear. Coal has made _three_ orders of magnitude more land uninhabitable for human habitation than has nuclear. And whereas fish may thrive behind a dam, nothing humans can eat will grow in a coal strip mine, ash flow, or other coal-related topography change. Whereas in nuclear exclusion zones, wildlife flourishes. |
|
|
But first, I agree there are always trade offs. We have alao been horribly slow in finding better energy.
As for hydro + coal and uninhabitable land. I think it depends on what you define as inhabitable in the first place. Much of it is done in obscure (?) areas that few care about. Of course, this contributes to out of sight out of mind. None the less, this should be considered.
On the other hand, nukes are closer to population, as well as near water. And, as mentioned, for these more people are more aware of them. You can also thank Hollywood for the fear(s).