That’s why nuclear is the better option these days: It’s low-carbon, capable of baseload and provides large amounts of energy without the need to destroy large patches of land.
I’m pretty sure hydro is a dead end. It can’t supply our needs today, much less in the future. And they’re environmental disasters both upstream and downstream.
> There are other possible power sources.
As long as you do not have uranium mines in your own back yard.
Still, nuclear requires fuel, and mining is an extraordinarily dirty industry, so I would guess hydro generally wins out overall.
However, if we are to avoid global climate catastrophe, we need to consume less energy, there is no future in consuming ever more but slightly cleaner. Especially given that in Europe and the US and so on we already have enough energy for all basic human needs, while the developing world still needs far more energy to achieve this. So to make room for them in the planet's remaining budget, we would have to not just stop building more, but actually reduce some of our power most likely.
The chances of this happening are... Slim.