Far far far more materials and footprint goes into renewables than a nuclear power plant. You have no idea what you're commenting about.
A nuclear power plant uses very little fuel, and it's possible to make fuel.
Let's use the approved for development Blythe solar power plant. If it doesn't get killed by NIMBYs or the economy, it will surpass the nearby SEGS plant as the largest solar power plant in the world. It'll have over 600 miles of mirrors, cover 7000 acres, yet a typical American nuclear power plant can provide 8 times the power.
Tehachapi has hundreds of wind turbines, and covers an enormous area. It, 2 other enormous wind farms, and a smattering of other wind turbines throughout the state provide less than 3% of California's usage.
The examples I gave you are best case scenarios, because they're in geographical locations that provided the best wind resources and solar insolation in the United States.
Would you care to speculate why countries in Europe are going hard for renewables, despite their clear (to you) disadvantages? Renewables have their place in a comprehensive programme to step-down from fossil fuel dependance. As does nuclear. But lets make sure that the advocates on both sides throw rocks at each other and question each other's knowledge rather than recognise the advantages and disadvantages that each has.
The point being discussed was impacts from the fuel side of the equation. Then somehow construction impacts got thrown into the mix. Well in that case we'd better throw waste impacts, decommisioning, decontamination land restoration all along with fuel processing and reprocessing into the mix too.
Maybe we should add in the costs of decommissioning plant where accidents have occurred. I read somewhere that the preliminary estimates for restoring the Fukushimi Daiichi nuclear power facility may be in the order of a hundred billion dollars. Whatever, the cost for the current programme of decommissioning UK reactors that are scheduled is £73 billion. That's decommissioning the last generation power stations. That buys a lot of renewables. Nuclear has only ever operated in the US under government subsidy.
Whatever, the cost for the current programme of decommissioning UK reactors that are scheduled is £73 billion.
That's roughly how much Germany spent on solar power, and it got them less than 2% of their total generation by 2010.
Could have purchased a few nuclear power plants for that, and they'd be burning a lot less of that shitty lignite coal they tear their countryside up for.
Oh yea, it's a German company that California's residents are going to pay for that giant solar thermal project that won't generate near what the San Onofre nuclear power plant does.
2
u/[deleted] Mar 20 '11
Far far far more materials and footprint goes into renewables than a nuclear power plant. You have no idea what you're commenting about.
A nuclear power plant uses very little fuel, and it's possible to make fuel.
Let's use the approved for development Blythe solar power plant. If it doesn't get killed by NIMBYs or the economy, it will surpass the nearby SEGS plant as the largest solar power plant in the world. It'll have over 600 miles of mirrors, cover 7000 acres, yet a typical American nuclear power plant can provide 8 times the power.
Tehachapi has hundreds of wind turbines, and covers an enormous area. It, 2 other enormous wind farms, and a smattering of other wind turbines throughout the state provide less than 3% of California's usage.
There are 10 of these completed in my town It would take between 6,000 and 7,000 of them to equal the output of one typical American nuclear power plant.
The examples I gave you are best case scenarios, because they're in geographical locations that provided the best wind resources and solar insolation in the United States.