I normally call BS when I see things like rotting vegetation mentioned as a cause of greenhouse gases in articles. The water will be somewhere and stuff will grow and die in it. When the carbon in and carbon out are on that sort of time scale people are probably missing the point and getting a bit obsessed. 
Interesting. Would have to be careful using radioactive products to power consumer electronics. Wonder how low the dose to the user would be? Also worth noting that contained beta decay leads to X-rays, so I'm interested what level of shielding would be required.
Used EV batts are usually employed for grid storage from what I've been reading. Not sure that Lithium tech is recycled en masse yet.
Betavoltaic tech is real but I doubt the cost will ever come down from the stratosphere.
Agree, hydro can be okay where little environment is wrecked for it. But where does that much water flow where changing it has no major impact? Artificial storage dams for load balancing being a different thing.
Nuclear has a lot of potential when the focus is on safety. Some newer generation tech is pretty good and not as much of a risk as the old nuclear plants.
How effective and are current methods of decontamination and recycling, and how do they impact the environment? Dealing with waste/residue of nuclear reactions has always been a challenge of nuclear energy.
Yes. Also any contamination of the water is much harder to control than contamination of land, which at least tends to stay put.
Improvement of battery technology would make it easier to store energy produced by wind/solar during windy and sunny times. In any case, I have always considered those sources good ways to augment an electric grid which also includes more traditional fuel-consuming or nuclear power plants, whose output is more consistent and less affected by environmental conditions.
