why the big fuss about wind farms they a lot better than nuclear power?

Question

why the big fuss about wind farms they a lot better than nucler power they cant kill us

Answer 1

What fuss? Why are people so hyped up about it or why are people so against it? It's a clean, renewable energy with NO waste whatsoever. We can have them in places that aren't used by people anyway so that they are out of the way.

Answer 2

1. people dont like the eyesore of giant windmills and the whinning sounds that the generators produce.
2. (and most importantly) Electricity cannot be stored on a mass scale.

Electric power has to be produced on demand. There is no such thing as a giant battery at the power plant. While there are some places that have nearly constant winds, for the most part wind is an unreliable source of energy since it has nothing to do with the demand.

I.e. just because its hot and everyone turns on the A.C. does not mean that the wind will happen to blow harder to provide all the extra necessary energy to power those units.

Alternatively nuclear energy for all its pros and cons does not have this issue.

Answer 3

I wouldn't say that they're a lot better than nuclear power. They kill birds and they're a blight on the landscape. People DO occasionally get killed by wind farms also, usually the people that have to service them If you scaled the number of them up to deal with future world power needs, they would become enormously unattractive and kill a lot more people. I'm not saying that nuclear is better, but wind is not the best alternative.

Answer 4

While wind farms are highly productive they are not always the best options. I'm fully in favor of wind power when it is feasible; however, I am realistic about it. Nuclear power is actually quite efficient and the disasters that have occured were mainly because of mismanagement. Nuclear power actually could be a better, cheaper option in some areas where wind power isn't feasible. People just freak out when they hear the world "nuclear".

Answer 5

Wind farms are a nice idea but not very practical. Firstly, they don't produce anything like enough electricity, and secondly they produce no electricity at all when the wind isn't blowing. They are very large for the small amount of electricity they do (or don't) produce and so the "carbon footprint" in making them is very large - that cost is susually not factored in by their supporters. Modern nuclear plants are extremely safe and the nuclear waste problem is not an intractable one - people are working on schemes to convert long half-time waste into short half-time waste.

Answer 6

Wind power sucks compared to what you get from nuclear energy in just about every way. The increasing need for power just to run all things internet (ie. Yahoo Answers) makes wind power nothing more than a novelty. For someone with the land and the initial capital to install one, it might pay for itself after 10 years, on average. And remember, Ted Kennedy effectively blocked a windfarm in Nantucket because of eye pollution.

Just look to Europe once again for the answers. While the rest of the continent feels happy spending billions of dollars to add millions of dollars worth of electricity, France uses nuclear power for 85% of total country power generation. They are ready for the increased power usage generated by info banks. Just look at how much energy Google uses as a corporation and you'll see that wind is nothing more than a novelty. Solar seems like it might be a better solution dollar for dollar.

Answer 7

Wind farms are a blot on the landscape, a family of farmers near to where I live turned down £5m pounds over 25 years because of the effect the turbines would have on their land and the historic relics which are of national importance.THATS WHAT YOU CALL COMMITMENT. We are and island race, surrounded by strong tides which could provide hydraulic power. Trawsfynnid power station harnessed the power of the lakes in the Welsh mountains.
This technology should have been expanded to provide the energy needs for the country which could mean we generated power without the dangers of nuclear power and the obnoxious blight of turbines on the countryside or as we are now seeing turbines on our shoreline.

Answer 8

I would think it's safer and cleaner with no by-product. It needs a lot of cleaning appearantly though. It's not a "free" energy as a lot of people think.

Solar power is still my favourite though. If I had a say in it, I would go tidal and wind for the coast, solar for the desert, wind for the mountains and any deserted place with lots of wind as well.

As for birds, they just gotta adapt to the new enviorment. I don't think the people in their right mind would build these in the forest anyhow so any interference with the animals should be minimal. Some Hardcore Enviormentalist might say

Answer 9

An diagnosis of well being information interior the area around 3 Mile Island performed via the Radiation and Public well being project got here upon that dying expenses for toddlers, toddlers, and the elderly soared interior the 1st 2 years after the three Mile Island twist of destiny in Dauphin and surrounding counties. The unfold of radioactive contaminates into the ambience from the Chernobyl twist of destiny replaced into finally detected around the globe. no person knows of nor ever will the best dying toll because of the Chernobyl twist of destiny or any of the numerous injuries there have been. dying comes slowly and could impression even the unborn. The wood marketplace is between the main deadly jobs, In 2008, fatalities greater to 116 Deaths per one hundred,000 workers and wood is selection 2 interior the proper 10 maximum deadly Jobs interior the country. Structural Iron and metallic marketplace workers proceed to be interior the selection 4 slot, with a delicate decrease to 40 six/one hundred,000 deaths. (In 2007, it replaced into seventy six deaths per one hundred,000 workers). Mining is yet another very risky marketplace, so is farming, oil and gas workers and the main deadly interest of all is fishermen. those sorts of jobs rank interior the proper ten maximum deadly jobs are you apart from could going to be suggesting that oil, gas and coal extraction be outlawed, no longer forgetting iron and metallic workers, wood workers, farmers and of direction fishermen. there are a number of roles that are lots greater risky to the two people who're employed in them and the final public than wind farms, in case you had afflicted to stick to in the process the logic of your argument you have got seen any such tenet is in simple terms undeniable dumb.

Answer 10

the simple one: economics
the more advanced one is that
1)humans are wasteful creatures anyway.
2)NIMBY pricks who want power but not on there land
3)nuclear power isnt that bad just the waste (granted 3 mile island and at worst chernobyl but chernobyl was built subpar and two idiots removing rods)
4)as for power wise you get more energy with nuclear than wind
5)youve never heard of a wind baron or a solar baron. too many oil and nuclear barons padding pockets.

oh well it wont matter anyway too many poeple on the planet means not enough to go around. come onmeteor, bring me some comfort LOL.