I'm also not quite sure what you mean by "the quality of life provided by different sources" - surely wind lights your lights just like nuclear does?
at what cost? and by cost I don't mean market cost. surely cost of electricity in Japan didn't account for nuclear meltdown possibility, thus far.
of course nuclear is still better than coal, which requires huge open pit mines and produces incredible amounts of dust, radioactivity of which is greater than all nucleotides released from nuclear power plants as far as I understand.
They did, up to a point. All the safety measure that are build into the reactors have to be paid for.
Many/most US coal mines are not open pit so "requires" is a bit strong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coal_mines_in_the_Unite...
Yes, really. The claim, which I disputed, was that open pit was required. Showing 50/50 (open/closed) disproves that claim.