We have nuclear, but a lot of Americans are concerned about nuclear for reasonable reasons.
We have renewables, but those can't take up the majority capacity of a grid unless we start adding massive batteries.
Then there's grid rebalancing where we incentivize people to use and store renewable energy locally, this lessening the strain on the grid but that still results in fossil fuels or nuclear.
Hydro has been found to be environmentally destructive. I'm not sure if that was just my state or if that's ubiquitous.
Ah, so people don't just "refuse to implement it", yeah? There's been a large number of disasters with long-term consequences and the industry is claiming it has more reliable systems, which is also what they said before many of these nuclear disasters occurred.
I'm hopeful for nuclear, but they have a ways to go in proving themselves to the wider public. With that said, I think you could've positioned what you said a bit more fairly.
We have renewables, but those can't take up the majority capacity of a grid unless we start adding massive batteries.
Then there's grid rebalancing where we incentivize people to use and store renewable energy locally, this lessening the strain on the grid but that still results in fossil fuels or nuclear.
Hydro has been found to be environmentally destructive. I'm not sure if that was just my state or if that's ubiquitous.
What were you thinking?