"Nuclear free" without being mostly "car free" also.
As long as people insist on driving as much as they do now, we will likely have to turn to nuclear power for our energy needs.
Heating and cooling large homes takes gobs of energy also.
Nuclear isn't necessarily that bad, but slowing down and consuming less isn't bad either.
I keep hearing that wind and solar power will just not be enough; in the near future at least.
Nuclear is likely to become a larger part of the energy mix. Possibly powering electric cars in the not too distant future.
KGO talk show host Bill Wattenburg has even blamed global warming on environmentalists. Environmentalists have blocked construction of nuclear, thus adding to the need for burning fossil fuel in energy production.
The logic makes sense.
Main point I make is that we can't have our cake and eat it too.
We can always try, however.
Maybe someday there will be a "magic energy source" with no downside.
Hydrogen fusion rather than nuclear fission?
Aw, the topic of another blog post some day.
While I'm not against atomic energy, I also say that slowing down and being less materialistic is a virtue as well.
Remember that newer electronics can use less energy and do more things than older electronics. Smaller, but still better.
Think vacuum tubes vs transistors?
Maybe life can mimic electronic technology someday.
Smaller homes? Closer and friendlier neighbors? Walking to work? Biking to work? Good public transit?
Am I idealistic? That's actually how I'm living now. It can be done, but inertia keeps people where they're at.
We can gradually change inertia.
Whichever way we go, we just can't have our cake and eat it too.
Car drivers who want affordable electric cars may have to bite the bullet and support nuclear energy, for a while at least. Until the more magic answer comes along, what ever that will be.
I also remember this phrase, "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."