|
|
|
|
|
by chiefalchemist
3138 days ago
|
|
Yes and no. 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). |
|