What are you saying? Are you asking if the benefits of the human race outweigh the costs? Or of hydroelectricity? If it's the latter, I think OP clearly said that in his opinion hydro is a "no-brainer" in a minority of cases.
My view is that hydro and fission are proven tech, so I am in favour of them. I am sceptical about solar and especially wind, which I suspect are feelgood solutions that are easy sells politically, ignore economics, and may consequently be more harmful than the things they were intended to replace.
Having gotten that out of the way, my post was more intended to be along the lines of a curmudgeonly cynical sideswipe at political processes. Getting hydro schemes approved seems a lot like getting bypass routes approved. There's always going to be otters, pandas, or whatever going to be on the short end of the stick. In one interview of a route's detractors, I saw a Downs Syndrome girl shown on the telly. The route would go near the home where she was housed, and would consequently "get confused". I was sitting there, thinking to myself, "holy shit, talk about cynical manipulation. She doesn't even know she's on here."
So my post was more of a criticism against the detractors of such schemes, who I think favour emotional over a more sober analysis. It's too easy to sloganeer about "Won't someone pleeease think of the children".
In the end, there's no definitively right or wrong answer, of course. It's up to society to weight the benefits and costs. There's always trade-offs. Sometimes the trade-offs can be black-and-white, sometimes they are shades of grey.
