14 Responses

1. it depends, how much are you selling it for?

2. 5 miles is a bit close. Not for safety reasons, the coal plant is more likely to catch fire as the plant is to leak, but for practicality.

   A major project so close to me would mean a -lot- more industrial traffic on streets i’m likely to drive. And my little sedan isn’t fun to drive when you share the road with dozens of semis.

3. I’d like to have one in my house so I could save money by not having to turn on the lights at night because of my constant glowing. Also with the amount of radiation I would be getting I would soon turn into a super hero at which time I would have to decide whether to use my powers for good or evil. Right now I’m leaning more to evil.

4. I’ll take the Nuke Plant!!

5. Ummm, the answer is no. However, your question is a loaded one and intellectually dishonest. If you reversed the question and asked if I would like to have a coal plant 5 miles away, the answer would be no also.

   All things being equal, I don’t really care which one is 100 miles away or 5 miles away. I just need to have enough electricity to keep my new energy-efficient light bulbs burning.

   Don’t forget that more people have died in Ted Kennedy’s care than in nuclear power plants in the US.

6. Won’t matter when it happens. I hear they have 200 lb bas taht glow in the water at night. Easy fishing. Take care.

7. I’d have to say nuclear if a 5MW wind turbine isn’t an option for my front yard. Could you make it one of those Toshiba pebble bed reactors though? They only put out 5-10 MW, so are kinda small and relatively safe. If you’re worried about loss of power through transmission lines, a coal plant would be best since I’m a ways from any decent sized city that would use most of the power.

8. yes

9. If those were my only 2 choices, I’d take the nuclear power plant.

   However, this is an unrealistic question. The power grid is not built in such a way that energy goes directly from power plants to homes. Every home gets a distribution of the various types of power generated by their utility provider.

   I do think we need to decrease our dependence on coal and increase nuclear power generation somewhat.

10. Interesting that it has been proven carbon dioxide makes plant life go stronger, taller, healthier as they need it to survive. The more carbon dioxide the more oxygen. This greenhouse emissions movement, Al Gore bull is just that. It appears to be loving and innocent but it’s pure propaganda. The environmental racket was created by UNCED, a Rockefeller/Rothschild invention. They backed the GAIA movement – bogus, Women’s movement to collect more taxes. It has given birth to costly useless inventions. Nuclear power is another racket, NWO-ish. I’d choose coal. It’s not clean, but it’s not a NWO weapon. Another fact is that cow farts are gas emission, the gov’t has considered taxing cattle owners as a penalty for a natural body function! Check out the official John Hunt – UNCED video on YouTube, he was present at the meetings, and ‘us lowly people’ are ‘lovingly’ referred to a ‘cannon fodder’. By the way, Gloria Steinem admitted in her book that Ms. Magazine was funded by the CIA and was proud of the fact.

11. We already have one that supplies about 60% of our power.

    I don’t subscribe to nimby. There is no more “someone else’s back yard”.

    I tend to think of the Navajo who were pushed into the worthless lands of the reservations in Nevada, except then we found uranium and managed to cheat them out of that too, while at the same time poisoning entire communities – the kids would play on the mountains of tailings and cement building materials made from the waste are radioactive.

    In rhetoric, this is what is known as a false choice.

    How about we put solar collectors on every roof in the US and generate 4 times our current consumption?

12. Well, given that nuclear fallout isn’t common, I still wouldn’t want to live within 5-500mi downwind of a nuclear plant.

    I would live 300mi upwind of a plant, and take my chances.

    If you just look at the health risks of mining/burning coal, (given some of your debates on global warming). I wouldn’t want to live downwind of that either.

    I’m here in CA’s central valley, and having that kind of junk added to the already nasty air that can get trapped here…NO THANK YOU. I’m up here near Sacramento, and you can easily see smoke in the air from the fires down in S.CA. :(

13. Actually the largest nuke plant in Canada is less than 5 miles from my home. I used to work there.

    I wouldn’t mind moving to a community with a nuke plant, but if I lived near a future proposed site I would be just as NIMBY as anyone else. Not because of any real danger but rather because the perceived danger would drive property values down.

14. I would prefer the nuclear plant, given only those two options.

    I currently live about 60 minutes south of San Onofre Nuclear plant and I used to live about 45 minutes south of the Duane Arnold nuclear facility.

    There haven’t been any problems with those plants and the newer ones should be even better. Given limited choices, I would always opt for nuclear, although a mix of options would be better in most cases.