Which would be better, 3200 MW or 320?

Question

I want both sides here. Who would rather see a wind farm or solar farm on the countryside?
OR
Who would rather see a couple nuclear power plants?

Answer 1

Nuclear power can generate massive amounts of power 24/7/365.

Solar produces 1/10 of wind and only works 50% on average.

Wind is very effective, however it causes global calming by taking energy out of the wind stream. We need more than a couple.

There's a place for all three for power generation. We shouldn't exclude any clean source of power.

[Edit] Not quite Bob. Wind still kills birds and will for a long time. The only problem with nuclear power is that people are fearful of modern technology. And their life is more than 50 years.

Answer 2

I think solar would be ideal for home use, because you already have roof space that is adequate and the cost should be coming down soon. There is a new solar film that has been developed that is more efficient and does not need to track with the sun. It is just a flexible plastic sheet sprayed with a photo sensitive ink.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0114_050114_solarplastic.html
http://www.konarka.com/

I live in Oklahoma, which has massive wind farms that continue to grow. Every time I go home to Kansas, I see tractor trailer rigs hauling blades that are longer than the trailer to these farms.

http://www.oge.com/es/wp/oge-wind-farms.asp

My grandmother used to live in Burlington, Kansas near Wolf Creek nuclear power plant. Nuclear power is less harmful to the atmosphere, but it presents a waste disposal problem and a security risk. These plants would be a prime terrorist target. These sources of power should be adequate for industry, business and possibly even electric cars, but special attention would be needed in security and waste management.

http://www.wcnoc.com/start.cfm

Hydrogen would also be a good way to store energy for vehicles and it can be used in internal combustion engines with very little waste and near zero emissions.

New technologies are expensive to research and develop, but the expense should come down with time. Most of us will have to wait until that day.

Answer 3

Nothing can be excluded although wind and solar have a minimal impact on the environment whereas nuclear has waste that needs storage for a long time. Also the cost of nuclear is more expensive than that of solar or wind because once installed the require less energy to maintain. You have to mine uranium, transport uranium, transport waste and store waste.

Dr Jello
"Global Calming" What a load of rubbish. So i guess all the Sky scrapers have already seen massive global calming. Or that in areas where land clearing has removed tall trees high winds have devastated everything. The minor impact wind farms would have on the wind energy would be minor. You shouldn't make things up Dr jello. Their is no evidence to suggest that wind turbines have a significant impact on wind in adjacent areas and to say "global calming" is alarmist. How many birds do the trucks transporting uranium and waste kill. Every energy source has its downsides but you have to look at each approch holistically and consider all the impacts and all the costs.

China had installed about 750 MW in wind power to date And AAustralia is installing a 154 MW power station now. But you also need to consider other ways to harness energy on a local or individual scale. In ustralia their is an $8000 rebate on grid connected home solar power generators and green energy credits. Also there is a home wind power generator on the market so these small contributions can also make substantial reductions in emissions.

Answer 4

I read where in order to power NYC with wind power you would need enough windmills to cover the state of Connecticut and then you'd still need coal power as a back up. New Yorkers would say it's worth it, but what a lot of windmills !!

Right now coal produces 50% of our power needs. The pollution created has been decreased by 30% in the last few years. At the moment it's still the best solution, but nuclear would be great too if we were allowed to make nuclear plants.

Windpower is just too unreliable, so nuclear would be the next best after coal.

Answer 5

It's not an either/or answer that will be of any use in mitigating global warming and to learn to live with its effects. First, I believe it's real and caused by people's actions. If our actions can change this situations they depend on our thinking about ourselves and life on this planet. That means more respectful and responsible living to ensure sustainability, as if we are interrelated and interdependent. Therefore acting as caring people, reducing, reusing and recycling comes first as a powerful strategy, then technology judged on its benefits and harms, relevant to needs and locations. Geothermal energy certainly should be in the mix. Not sure about nuclear as it takes a lot of time and money to build and decommission them and long-term radiation problems are troublesome.

Answer 6

I want it all.

Wind and solar where they work well, nuclear where they don't.

And a phase out of nuclear in, say, 50 years, when wind and solar can do it all. We need nuclear for the transition away from fossil fuels, because we've left it so late. We won't need it forever.

Wow. Jello and I agree on a lot these days.