8 Comments

1. 

   Wind power- no chance of meltdown; less people to manage; no waster
   Nuclear- more power; more efficient; more reliable; better overall
   Not sure about the countries
   References :

   Comment by Trent — @

2. 

   Nuclear energy exerts "thermal pollution." When it takes in water to boil it needs to go out somewhere and it isn’t all steam so it is sent out much warmer and can kill ecosystems. Wind leaves no pollution. The US dose use wind energy in CA PA NC and anywhere else with mountains
   References :
   My science teacher

   Comment by Dario T — @

3. 

   It can be done by private citizens anywhere, assuming there are prevailing winds. Its cheaper. Also, a failure of a wind turbine doesn’t require an evacuation of the general population. The downside is bird strikes. If they are set up in a migratory area, that can play havoc on bird numbers. The best thing is to use less energy in the first place.
   References :

   Comment by Area Woman — @

4. 

   less chances of being killed if u use wind so yaa thats kinda good thats the biggest one
   the leftovers of nuclear energy can get into water and kill everything
   if u are within a 2 mile radius of the explosion zone you can get cancer and die
   wind power does not harm anyone or anything (except for stupid birds)
   References :

   Comment by Lintier_than_you — @

5. 

   Wind power is great, very little pollution other than the huge land area it takes up to get much power. In the Netherlands they have many of them on the ocean. In the US we have hundreds of thousands of them in the western states.

   Nuclear Power is much more reliable. Will produce power 24/7, and take a very small space comparatively. The negative with Nuclear is it is more difficult to manage safely, and then we must handle the nuclear waste.

   For example, it may take about 10 acres for wind power to produce 2-5 MW (they must be spaced pretty far apart), and it only produces power when the wind is over 6-8MPH. You can produce maybe 500-1000MW of power 24/7 in the same area with Nuclear.
   References :

   Comment by GABY — @

6. 

   When a copper-wound armature (I think they call it) is turned inside a magnetic field, it generates electricity. Wind blows and turns the windmill blades and turns an armature. In Israel they have experimented with pumping liquid metal through a magnetic field to generate power. Hydro-electric dams use water to turn the armatures.

   It is conceivable man could put up so many windmills it would have some negative effect on atmosphere, weather, wildlife. It is alleged many birds aren’t able to survive around windmills, being struck and killed by the blades.

   Nuclear energy is a misnomer. It is actually steam energy, created by exposing water to ‘enriched’ uranium. ‘Enriched’ may be a misnomer too. It is simply radioactive, unstable, and hot, which generates the steam.

   To ‘enrich’ uranium and make it unstable and hot, man vaporizes mountains of coal and oceans of oil to generate electricity for the process, and to build the plants and infrastructure and transport the materials and people and store the waste for hundreds of thousands of years.

   Everywhere man has tried to handle nuclear materials, from the mines to the processing plants to the enrichment plants to the power plants to the storage facilities, and nuclear medicine, it has gotten away from him and polluted the environment of all living things for hundreds of thousands of years to come.

   I wonder if the fossil fuel inputs are greater than the ‘hot’ energy output of so-called nuclear fuel. If you get more out than you put in, then it would seem you could use the first batch to generate the energy demanded to make the next batch, and never need to vaporize mountains of coal and oceans of oil again and again and again to keep making uranium unstable. But they don’t. They keep vaporizing mountains of coal and oceans of oil to make uranium hot and dangerous.

   Wind, solar, and geothermal energy are likely better bets for survival of life on a terrestrial plane which is totally unstable, subject to catastrophic natural change and cosmic jeopardy.
   References :

   Comment by garyeandrews — @

7. 

   if wind power could supply as much energy as a small reactor our aircraft carriers would have sails instead of reactors. up to 5000 people live on these reactor powered ships with no ill effects.
   wind power is only usefull in areas that have constant wind & low power demands. most countrys have wind power farms in suitable areas including the U.S.
   I would suspect that the european low countrys like the netherlands would have the most experience with wind power, they’ve been using windmills to pump water & grind grain for hundreds of years. they still have the wind & technology so I assume they use wind power to generate a significant percentage of their electricity.
   References :

   Comment by crash — @

8. 

   I have built my own wind generator from directions found in a magazine. I have yet to even get the materials necessary to build my own nuclear power generation facility.
   References :

   Comment by thor — @

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.