On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 08:19:55 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote:

I didn't look at the links, but that is solvable with citing and
engineering refinements. When they installed a test farm here in the
mountains of NC, the low frequency created by the airfoils drove
people nuts.... even miles away and in the privacy of their home. I
think we have enough data, now, to design around such considerations.

You can cite them all you want, but I think a better option might be
siting - heh, heh,heh...

There are options other than nukes - I agree. And I think that solar
is one good option. I also think that wind is another option.
Geothermal is an option as is gravity generation (wave generators).

Having said that, you will still need capacity for back up and clean
coal plants cost as much, from an engineering/siting standpoint, as a
nuke which has more capacity and is more efficient.