So This Means You're In Favor of Nuclear Power, Right?

I am, of course, being sarcastic.  The Bay New de Jour has three articles today on new coal-fired power plant that is being considered to supply power in the region:

Planned Coal Plant Could Cost $200 Million In Health Costs, Report Finds - Williamsburg Yorktown Daily

How Coal-Fired Power Plants Drain Health and Wealth - Bay Daily (blog; Chesapeake Bay Foundation)

Will Deadly Air Pollution Settle in Virginia? - Earth Justice

I'd be happier with their message if I thought they would favor the single form of power that could be instituted that could produce most or all of our power requirements if needed, nuclear.  Instead, they will, of course, continue to oppose nuclear power for reasons that I can only consider incomprehensible.  If health were what they really wanted to protect, there is nothing safer than nuclear:

Energy Source              Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

Coal – world average               161 (26% of world energy)
Coal – China                       278
Coal – USA                         15
Oil                                36  (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas                         4  (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass                    12
Peat                               12
Solar (rooftop)                     0.44 (less than 0.1%
Wind                                0.15 (less than 1%)
Hydro                               0.10 (european, 2.2%)
Hydro - world including Banqiao)    1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr)
Nuclear                             0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

But that's not really their goal. They're really opposed to all energy development, except maybe wind and solar (and then, wait until somebody tries to put that near their backyard).