Duke46 says : "For equivalent power production, nuclear power needs a few city blocks while each of the alternatives requires the acreage of several states."

Let's do the math...

The Indian Point nuclear power station is located on the Hudson north of NYC. Its rated output is 1,955 MW. Say 2000 to make the math easier. It takes up more than "a few city blocks" but it's not an enormous installation. Not close to a square mile anyway.

A typical modern wind turbine produces 2 MW. Space them about 500 feet apart and you can fit 100 wind turbines on a square mile of land. So you'd need 10 square miles of wind turbines (1000 wind turbines!) to equal one Indian Point nuclear plant.

Except that the wind turbines can't produce full power all the time because the wind doesn't blow fast enough all the time. Capacity factor and all that; the nukes go in excess of 90%, the wind about 35% at a good site. So you need about 30 square miles of wind turbines to equal one Indian Point nuke plant.

But unlike the nuclear plant, the land under the wind turbines can be used for other things, like agriculture or solar power. Doesn't have to be land, either. And the modular nature of the wind plant leads to economies of scale and bringing the plant on line gradually.

Total cost of both installations is left as an exercise for the reader. But be sure to include things like decommissioning costs and waste disposal, emergency costs, etc.

Duke46: "Just to provide electricity to meet New York City’s needs would require blanketing Connecticut with 300-foot-tall wind turbines that generate power just eight hours a day, on average."

No, that's not quite right.

Connecticut has 5,543 square miles of land area. At 15 square miles per MW (see above), that's about 370 MW - or 185 Indian Point plants. Does NYC need that much electricity? I don't think so!

Duke46: "Coal, oil, and natural gas are interchangeable."

No, they're not. Not until we have coal-powered cars and airplanes.

Duke46: "200 nuclear-powered coal liquefaction plants could eliminate 83% of our dependence upon foreign oil."

At what cost? How much would the plants cost to build and operate? How much would the resulting gasoline-from-coal cost at the pump?

Duke46: "China is preparing to challenge the United States, and is preparing for nuclear war if it comes to that."

Won't be necessary. Economy/efficiency is the new battleground. If the USA is dependent on imported energy and manufactured goods, who has actually won? Who is actually free?

Duke46: "it is better to die in freedom than to live in slavery."

Are the Chinese slaves? Or are they becoming capitalists? Heck, here in the "land of the free", we had legalized slavery (some people owning other people) until the mid-1860s.

"Any reason we can't have small wind turbines on lampposts, rooftops and other locations that could feed directly into the grid?"

It can be done and is being done. The big question is cost-effectiveness - ROI, IOW.

If you spend $5,000 for a system that generates 2000 kWh per year, and the grid pays you 5 cents per kWh, you get $100. That's a return of 2%, assuming no maintenance costs. (The grid will pay you the wholesale price, not the retail price).

Remember that everything connected to the grid needs to meet code, be protected against backfeeds, etc. And the power from the wind generator needs to be conditioned and inverted to power-line frequency and voltage. You'd be surprised how fast all the costs add up.

Before rural electrification, many farms had their own wind generators. Such systems were very small scale, usually just enough for some lights and a 4 or 5 tube radio designed for the 32 volts DC the system made. Those systems weren't cheap, but they could be less expensive than kerosene, candles, and batteries for the radio.

"childhood when we roamed the neighborhood all day, riding dirtbikes, role playing and banging around with the other dirty animal kids in the hood. We just had to be home by dark and we couldn't beat on anyone. It was pretty simple, no shuttling to ten different activities, no 'playdates', and definitely no nannies."

But you weren't doing that sort of thing at five or six years old.

"What happened to the pack of kids that used to figure out ways to settle their own differences? We'd have to adjust our behavior without our parents leaning over us, "Say sorry to Tommy for clobbering him!". We worked it out with the other kids, played imaginative games for hours and we weren't in the fold of anyone's apron."

What happened was that American life changed.

In the bad old days, kid-population density was much greater. There were a lot more people in the neighborhood and a lot more kids your age within a certain distance. There were sidewalks so you didn't have to walk/bike in the street. There were lots of moms at home and lots of siblings only a year or two older/younger.

Kids' pictures weren't on milk cartons, either.

In such an environment, kids above a certain age could roam freely and not get into too much trouble. Today the distances and hazards are often much greater.

"You don't have to join a 'playgroup' where everyone seems to want to discuss kids every second of every day and you don't have to start wearing mommy jeans. It is imperative though, (and non-negotiable) that you find some like-minded girlfriends. You will be able to identify us. We are the ones who have that dazed and slightly exhausted look, as if we have lost something but we are finding it amusing anyway."

There are also plenty of dads in similar situations. They can be friends/supports/resources too.