Oddly, I happen to think hydro-electric is one of the better sources of power, commercial & otherwise.
But it seems to me, in the U.S. we're tearing down dams faster than we're putting them up.

Oddly, so does everyone else. The bald fact is that the vast majority of hydro-electrical sites are developed. What sites are left won't be worth developing.

The most ghastly thing about nuclear are its monumental legacy costs.
The nuclear waste we generate today may remain fatally radioactive for many millennia.
So what?

So the electricity we consume in a nano-second carries this string attached. It is a burden that will compel safeguarding from evil-doers, & natural disasters, for hundreds of human generations.
We get the (brief) benefit. THEY get stuck with the burden, virtual zero benefit to them.

I'm not aware of any legitimate standard of ethics or morals that would permit such flagrant exploitation. Are you?
Is anybody?
Horse puckey. The 'legacy costs' of developing more nuclear are arguably far less than that of the contribution of fossil fuel to global warming. Pretty much every human activity carries a 'legacy cost'. The point we're at now is to pick the cost that does the least damage.


As consumers we should become diligent in selecting products that carry the least bad effect on our environment and our health for that too (health image ) is effected by the products we use in our homes and on our highways image

Unfortunately, as wise as those words are, we should have been thinking about that a century ago. Unfortunately, I doubt that there is little that can be done, with or without nuclear power, to avoid hitting a wall, energy-wise. At that point, society is going to need to make as radical a shift as it did in the first half of the twentieth century.

Assuming we survive the nasty little resource wars we'll be fighting.

Regards,
M. Graham