what an interesting debate. Can I throw a hypothetical? if grid...

what an interesting debate. Can I throw a hypothetical? if grid power were unavailable, what form of power would you choose as the most practical, consistent, and long-term least harmful to install in your home? Supposing someone invented a Bluegen sized nuclear reactor. Would you choose to put a nuclear reactor outside your kitchen wall? I think the problem is the extreme disconnect between what we use/dispose of in our homes by turning a switch, flushing the pan, grabbing something off the supermarket shelf - and what actually happens in the production processes and the toxins/environmental damage created . I note the the nuclear vs coal debate is based on which one has killed the most people or is likely to kill the most people over time. Was Chernobyl the worst nuclear disaster? The extreme safety controls needed to prevent nuclear disasters might not be applied and policed in the developing economies any more than they ensure workplace health and safety in coal mines currently. Yet China and India need cheap power to fuel their industry. We currently have solar power but find it too inconsistent. Other problems are having to cut down our native trees to prevent them shading the panels. Will the installation of solar panels in cities also mean the gradual degreening of cities? We would have to cut down a huge number of native trees if we wanted a wind turbine to operate with any efficiency. So even these renewables have a down side. I still think fuel cells will be a vital addition to the energy mix in the near future.