4 ms·
You aren't taking into consideration the vast amounts of concrete and steel that go into a nuclear plant, nor the mining and refining of the uranium, nor, for t
by easp 15y ago
You aren't taking into consideration the vast amounts of concrete and steel that go into a nuclear plant, nor the mining and refining of the uranium, nor, for that matter, it's disposal.
Further, I think you are overestimating the impact of building and deploying wind turbines. They may require a lot of land, but their physical footprint is pretty small, and most of the land around them can be used for other purposes, like agriculture.
- ars 15y agoI am taking those into consideration. A nuclear plant produces a tremendous amount of energy for the materials it's made from. I was doing the math, and this document popped up as a search: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:UjtsvTfrOgQJ:www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/wind-concrete-steel-07.doc+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShS9RRktG_eNeqbnoTZa_JCkPBNZdqboYOE6i7beemDjgYK4GJc5ZryJJ8i4MxfiO2YK7R87bOBIySvVayW7VC2GcwnxUWIM4zVwVP7LPYJ6blgXqoGy4Ub8FUQv_pkbIdPcYnp&sig=AHIEtbSQTCLuYOK3u4CG37_QbqZXH6EdLw https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:UjtsvTfrOgQJ:... So they did the math for me - wind turbines require 60 times as many resources as nuclear. The amount of uranium needed is tiny, very very tiny. And all the uranium ever made can be disposed of in one site, it's not really a lot. They also require far far more land. I don't just mean how much air space, but the actual tower. Wind turbines are better than coal, and since we are building lots of coal plants I am all for wind. But they are not better than nuclear - not even close.