What would you prefer: wind power or nuclear?

Question

as government policy seems to be turning more and more towards nuclear energy, how do people feel about this option? Particularly in relation to other energy options such as wind energy, which, up until recently, appeared to be being pushed heavily by government policy but has not been developed to the levels hoped for by government targets (at least partly due to a lack of public support). Can nuclear really work where wind power failed?

Answer 1

Wind power is still being promoted and developed in the UK; the links below are all to news stories from the past two days that suggest that it is far from being forgotten!

Nuclear power still relies on fuel being mined, shipped to the UK and processed - a process that involves other nations providing us with a constant supply. Last year we saw that we could face a 'energy crisis' if Russia decided to increase the prices on gas they supply us with - the same could quite possibly happen with nuclear fuel. Wind power doesn't have this problem.

Nuclear also produces waste fuel - and although recently it's been suggested that there are 'safe' ways of disposing of it, who can really say what may happen in the future. Wind is here to stay, so in my view, Wind power again wins over nuclear.

Wind is cheap (after the initial set up), safe and secure. Wind all the way for me!

Answer 2

Wind power of course if the choice was between the two. Wind turbines are not displeasing to the eye and if you've ever stood next to one you would know these things are not noisy.
However, to me geothermal is probably the best choice for electricity generation in the future when the cost can be brought down to a reasonable amount.

Answer 3

What a question! some may say wind power, as it is safer to the environment, and cheaper to set up. However, nuclear power is cheaper in the long run, and only produces a small amount of waste, which becomes safe after a while. Also, wind power is not very efficient, and to supply all the energy that this country needs, around half of the whole coutry would need to be converted into wind farms.

On the terrorist front, the walls of a nuclear power station are seriously thick. I saw a TV show about nuclear power, where, as a safety check, they slammed a military aircraft packed with explosives into one of the walls that would be used for the reactor at over 500mph. The plane was vapourised apart from the wing tips that were outside the wall, but over half of the wall remained, i think mr bin laden would have a tough time getting through those!

Answer 4

Wind power is one of those things that seems like a good idea, when you know nothing about it.

When you start to look at it a little more closely, you realise the problems.

The two big problems with wind power?

1) You'd need a wind farm the size of Greater Manchester to match the output of a single nuclear power station.

2) You don't get a single watt of power from a wind farm when the wind isn't blowing.

For these reasons, I think that, currently, nuclear is the only way to go.

"The UK needs to start building (not designing, or arguing about in ten-year planning enquiries) 12 nuclear power stations this year. Nuclear power does not emit CO2. The French, 80 per cent nuclear, have half the UK's carbon footprint." - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/12/nclim12.xml&page=1

Answer 5

This question is ultimately one of economics. As long as the current methods are affordable, other methods will not be sustainable without subsidy.

But economic realities aside - I prefer wind. Free. No messy left overs. No chance of meltdown.

But wind has downsides, too. It kills birds. No one likes to look at the towers. It doesn't generate a thing when the wind stops. And, of course, the technology also costs money.

The real solution will ultimately be a blend. As solar becomes cheaper, more houses will make some of their own power. City residents will drive electric or hybrid cars. Geothermal may be used where the conditions are right. Wind will be used in those locations where best feasible. Hydro will always be part of the solution. There are ways to make energy at sea using waves. Biodiesel may be used to supplement fossil fuels.

It all comes back to $. When its cost effective, we'll change.

Answer 6

Nuclear power (despite the current hype) is not pollution free. The environmental cost is huge....and that doesn't take into account the pollution produced by the waste. The Energy Returned over the Energy Invested is small.
Is it worth digging out a barrel of oil when it takes a barrel oil to get it out?
Wind power...cool.
But this doesn't go far enough. We shouldn't respond to demand...we should reduce demand!

Answer 7

Nuclear is a short term option at best, in the UK most plants are being decommisioned and new ones would at best only operate for a couple of decades. Risks are huge as was shown by Chernobyl and Windscale and they cause diplomatic problems with Ireland.
Wind is the one that gets promoted in the UK but has a detrimental effect on scenery and takes up a lot of land.
Solar probably isn't suitable for the UK.
Geothermal definately isn't suitable for the UK.
I prefer the Biomass option as it is the most reliable carbon neutral option.

Answer 8

Wind and other renewable sources of electricity.

Although nuclear can power more homes the problem seems to be you need a lot of wind turbines to replace one station. With the amount of coast we have, most of which we don't even use I can't see the problem in putting wind farms there.

Answer 9

Nuclear power done right with breeder reactors, reprocessing, correct engineering and safeguards could provide power indefinitely. However, like everything else, it will never get done right and end up creating a bigger problem than the one it was intended to solve. I once asked my friend "Aren't power lines ugly, what if we could replace them with a windmill on every roof?" He said, "um, I think that's a wash". Solar is the way to go. Passive, hot water panels and photovoltaic could be integrated into the architecture of buildings. Combined with demand reduction through conservation and efficiency. Eventually, photovoltaic electrolysis of sea water for hydrogen. Then, the water that didn't get evaporated over the ocean because you interrupted it with your solar panel will come out of your tailpipe in Nebraska somewhere.

Answer 10

In an ideal world NUCLEAR, because we are told we can get the greater out from the lesser in. Esp. with Anti-matter.. (oh god!!! think of the disasters if we used that the way weve used standard Uranium!)
But we dont know how to look after it and its open for 'Terrorist Attack'.

Wind Power maybe hasn't been backed enougth. There are several wind farms now, but the major problem is land to site them on. Though i have seen several 'SPEED SIGNS' that flash up if your doing over 30 that have a battery thats re-charged by a solar panel/mini windmill.