Nuclear Power vs. Wind Farms
I love these people who claim that their report/infographic/whatever is the one “the government doesn’t want you to see.” Here’s an infographic that makes the point that we can generate more power per acre with nuclear than we can with wind or solar — and, of course, government is hiding it from you.
Not to come off as disrespectful, but don’t most sixth graders already understand this? Yes, solar and wind require more surface area per watt than other modes of energy generation. They don’t burn fossil fuels, which are super-concentrated solar energy that was collected over hundreds of millions of years, and they don’t split atoms with processes that create issues with safe operation, waste disposal, and the proliferation of weapons that have the capacity to wipe out our civilization. Solar and wind rely on the real-time energy inputs from the sun, which, btw, means that they’re harmless. Doesn’t that count?
If land use were the only criterion, the nuclear guys would have been declared the winners half a century ago. Unfortunately, it’s a bit more complicated…and somehow I think they know that.
Craig,
As you know, I am an unabashed and full-throttle advocate for nuclear power… but I obviously agree that their anti-renewable rhetoric is often tiresome and petty… Of course, an unbiased view might point out that their attacks are not exactly unprovoked. It was the anti-science scare tactics lead by the environmental movement over the past 30 years which is specifically to blame for the fact that nuclear energy is only ~19% of the grid energy rather than ~40% of grid energy… Note that means that coal is now ~40% rather than ~20%. So their spite is
Of course, there are other issues – such as the availability of economically recoverable uranium – that must be considered… Which is actually why I chimed in. I don’t know the answer to this question (never cared enough to know), but I wonder how much land use would be credited for nuclear power if you consider all of the mining and refining of fissionable materials… and then included the security perimeters required for all of the steps (mining, refining, power plant, and waste disposal).
A nuclear reactor has a small footprint, but it requires a mile radius security perimeter – which is ~8 million cubic meters. Solar energy wouldn’t come close on that alone. If the wind resource was ideal it would be close (and that land would be available for dual use, which should count for something)… but once you included the mines and their security perimeter and the fuel manufacturing facility and its security perimeter…. I still don’t think that solar could catch nuclear… but it would be an interesting comparison. It would not be a runaway.
🙂