Has anyone actually done Threat Risk Assessments for each of these posed alternative energy options? Key areas of attack in war and terrorism include transport, food supply and energy production. Nuclear + renewables may be "optimum" provision, but there is also a higher risk of targeted attack on critical facilities. Solar may be less powerful, but also lesser risk of attack... TRA needs to be included along with costs to environment and economy.
Interesting point, however i would think it would be much easier to defend a small number of energy generation plants, as opposed to millions of solar generation plants, (rooftop solar and farms). Also when you take into account all renewables require diesel and gas fired generators for them to work and we now have to import both of them for our needs whereas we have coal and uranium in abundance. I think perhaps Coal and Nuclear would significantly reduce the risk.
Risk analysis is essential good practice in doing no harm
This content is created by the open source Your Priorities citizen engagement platform designed by the non profit Citizens Foundation