I can give it a 7 because Tom Jones and the Top Gear Stuntman were in it.
Anything with Tom Jones in it = -2 points, Top Gear Stuntman = -1.
Even if all those new electric power plants were nuclear what are we going to do with all the toxic waste that lasts for hundreds of years, or the threat from terrorist turning a power plant or two into large "dirty bombs" upwind of LA for instance? If I recall correctly electricity doesn't travel all that well and to be most efficient the power plants need to be located nearby. Good luck with getting those nuclear plants built that are near our most populous cities that are in earthquake zones, near hurricane prone coasts, in the tornado prone Midwest, or in anyone's backyard really. Finally, has anyone studied the effect on our climate of releasing vastly more amount of water vapor into the atmosphere, the environmental and economic impact of building million upon millions of radically new vehicles and converting fueling stations to hydrogen, replacing all the current working vehicles, or the economic costs to the environment of mining just the copper needed for the windings for multiple millions of new electric engines?
Your post contains much hysteria. Allow me to address it in a calm manner.
In reverse order:
You can make electric motor windings from other materials than copper. They're less than ideal, but they work.
Hydrogen does not have to instantly replace all the current working vehicles. The best way for it to happen would be for hydrogen vehicles to be phased in and replace gasoline vehicles as they are retired or traded in. For that matter, we should have a diverse fuelling ecosystem - I think we should also have biodiesel vehicles plus one or two other options available. As we all know, a diverse ecosystem is stronger and more resistant to outside disruptions. (This is in contrast to a forcibly "diverse" company, which is not.)
Considering that you are 1) removing water in the environment, 2) splitting the water into its constituent hydrogen and oxygen atoms by application of electricity, 3) inserting the resulting hydrogen into a tank and then recombine it with oxygen through a membrane to generate electricity and form water again, and finally 4) exhausting the water back out into the environment, I'm *pretty* sure that if you produce the hydrogen locally that becomes a zero sum game. You *might* increase the humidity levels a *little*. Then again, you might not. Even if you do, plants love humidity. And the more plants, the better, right?
We already *have* reactors, constructed in the 1970s and early 1980s that are "are near our most populous cities that are in earthquake zones, near hurricane prone coasts, in the tornado prone Midwest, or in anyone's backyard really". With the exception of one poorly constructed and badly run unit on Long Island, we have never had a significant incident with any of them. In fact, Texas likes nukes so much, we're clamoring to add more reactors to the South Texas Project (the nuclear farm near Houston, right in the hurricane zone) and are looking for more places in the state that we can put them. There are also nuclear reactors in Tornado Alley and out near San Francisco in the earthquake zones. But let's say that you have some cause for concern (which you don't, if you look at how they are designed and run these days). Well, then you look at a "nuclear battery" type reactor, which is a "fail-safe" unit that is about the size of a large van. You dig a hole in the ground, run control cables and power lines to it, and then entomb it in concrete. In 20 years, when the "battery" runs down, you dig it back up and send it back to the factory for service. There are no field-servicable parts inside and there are no powered moving parts. You can put one of these in place of a transmission substation and power a small city, or a good part of a larger one. See the Toshiba 4S design. Good luck excavating one of those and making off with the fissionables in less than a few weeks with a bunch of construction equipment, let alone without someone noticing and shooting you.
Upwind of LA? Um.. in order to be upwind of LA, you have to have built reactors on Catalina Island or put them on an artificial island somewhere out in the Pacific Ocean. But let's say that for some reason you did put a reactor on Catalina Island. Well, since it'd likely be a Westinghouse AP1000, 1) breaching the outer containment vessel won't actually do anything other than cause the thing to shut down and shield the fissionables, 2) you'd need more force than a truck bomb in the first place, and 3) you can't make it into a dirty bomb unless you physically take the fuel pebbles out, attach explosives to them, and then detonate them in city squares. There's no giant rods to provide dirty bomb material in one. Finally, most reactor containment vessels are designed to take a *747* strike and survive intact, so even a 9/11 scenario won't work. If terrorists are going to make dirty bombs, they're going to get radioactive material from Russia or Pakistan, not from a US reactor.
With regards to the nuclear waste problem; we are the only major nuclear power on earth that has a nuclear waste disposal problem because we don't reprocess it and burn it again. With reprocessing, nuclear fuel can be reused over and over and over. In fact, with reprocessing a nuclear fuel rod is 99% consumed with only 1% going to waste. Since Jimmuh Kahtah decided to "send a message" and banned reprocessing in the name of "setting an example for the world", spent fuel rods have been stacking up in storage facilities. If all the rest of the uranium vanished tomorrow, it is estimated that by reprocessing the spent fuel rods we have sitting in storage we could power the entire US and meet current projected energy demands for the
next 250 years. That's not a typo. The nuclear waste disposal problem has been magnified by stupid government policies. Everyone else on the planet who uses nuclear power reprocesses. Nobody else has a significant waste disposal problem. Nobody else needs a Yucca Mountain facility. And the irony of this is that the party that complains the most about nuclear waste, and blocks reactors because of it.... is the one that caused there to be a problem in the first place.