Sorry - it wouldn't let me reply to your last comment... >> Nuclear, all nuclear, has the down side of needing local power. If you have to shut down in an emer

Sorry - it wouldn't let me reply to your last comment... >> Nuclear, all nuclear, has the down side of needing local power. If you have to shut down in an emergency you need to keep shit running (this is what killed Fukushima in part)... Wouldn't that be true of any power source? If you do a full shutdown, the power to run everything has to come from somewhere? (Palo Verde handle maintenance shutdowns by having 3 reactors, 2 running and 1 down for refuel/maintenance). Also, given the death tolls from any major hydro dam failing, I'd guess the numbers would be a wash (pun intended). More specifically, why would we assume things won't get safer over time? As for solar - how much space we can dedicate to it near cities could become a problem? and some places aren't really well suited to it (nor are some places suited to nuclear or hydro). According to other comments it also seems to be getting more expensive, and installs are slowing down. I don't have a problem with solar, hydro OR nuclear ... Hell, I used to live near one of those methane producing garbage dumps, IIRC. I think the future is gonna require a balance. I