So let’s put nuclear power to rest already
Note that this article isn’t even anti-nuclear. But still it points out that current nuclear technology is fundamentally incapable of solving global warming. The scale of nuclear buildout that would be required would have each batch of nuclear reactors simply fuelling the construction of the next batch, and world emissions rising as quickly as ever.
They suggest investing in nuclear to make it more efficient. I rather think there’s been too much “investment” in nuclear already.
| — Adriana Mugnatto-Hamu on 2008 Mar 6 in Ecology & sustainability, News |
Wind power is great, very little poulltion other than the huge land area it takes up to get much power. In the Netherlands they have many of them on the ocean. In the US we have hundreds of thousands of them in the western states.Nuclear Power is much more reliable. Will produce power 24/7, and take a very small space comparatively. The negative with Nuclear is it is more difficult to manage safely, and then we must handle the nuclear waste.For example, it may take about 10 acres for wind power to produce 2-5 MW (they must be spaced pretty far apart), and it only produces power when the wind is over 6-8MPH. You can produce maybe 500-1000MW of power 24/7 in the same area with Nuclear.
The space argument is not really fair. Nuclear power requires enormous areas of devastation to mine uranium, it requires significant depositories for low level toxic materials at every stage of processing and energy production. Meanwhile, the calculation for wind power presumes that the land between wind turbines is useless, which is false. Mark Jacobson addresses this well. Here’s a quick presentation where he talks about this:
https://www.ted.com/talks/debate_does_the_world_need_nuclear_energy