What would you prefer to see on the landscape? A wind farm or a nuclear power plant?
It is less dangerous to have a wind farm than a nuclear power plant. It also costs less to build a wind farm than it does to build or dismantle a nuclear power plant.
Related Items
- What would happen if a nuclear power plant in the UK exploded?
I live in Kent and the nearest nuclear power plant is at Dungeness. what would happen if the was to explode? ... - What happens when a Nuclear Power Plant fails?
This morning in my town of San Clemente the air raid sirens went off unexpectingly due to a mechanicle error in the siren. There was no real danger bu... - Why does a nuclear power plant have to refuel?
If nuclear waste is still radioactive, why does a nuclear power plant have to refuel? ... - Can nuclear power plants create black holes?
I'm doing a project in science and need to know: If someone were to create a nuclear power plant in central california, could it create a black hole? ... - How different is the process to make nuclear fuel for power plants vs. weapons grade nuclear material?
Does having a nuclear power plant automatically mean you have a nuclear weapon capability? If not why, and what must happen before said material becom... - Is it possible for a nuclear power plant to experience a nuclear explosion?
Please answer the question, then tell me why or why not? ... - what does it mean when the red light keeps flashing in a nuclear power plant?
im just here on work experience and everyone's left me on my own. i dont know what to do. ... - If everybody suddenly died what would happen to the nuclear power stations?
A series on TV has nearly everybody dead from flu. Everything has gone off - water, power etc. Coal and oil powered stations would, presumably, just ... - What is the difference between a nuclear reactor and power plant?
I was assigned a project on Nuclear Reactors and am wondering if there is a difference between the two? There is deffiantly more info on power plants ... - What determines the life of nuclear power plants?
I researched that on average, nuclear power plants are designed to last 30-40 years, and in some cases 60 years. What determines the life of the plant... - How do you make a home nuclear generator to power electricity?
Hey. I am tired of paying the electricity bill and got fined for taking my neighbours from his pond. Turned out he never watched tv or had a computer.... - What is the average efficiency of a nuclear fission power plant?
I'm writing a paper comparing nuclear fusion and fission. I'd like to toss in the fact that nuclear fission plants are terribly inefficient (at least ... - Are there warnings for nuclear power plant leaks or meltdowns? What do you do if a warning is issued?
Do areas around nuclear power plants get some kind of warning if there is a leak or possibility of a meltdown? You know, kind of like when we get torn... - How many nuclear power plants would need to be in the US to be the main source of electricity?
France gets almost 80% of its electricity from nuclear power plants but it is a small country, so how many power plants would the US need to get aroun... - How hard would it be to double major in chem and nuclear engineering?
I want to major in both Chemical engineering and nuclear engineering. I hear double majoring isn't too difficult but seeing as both majors seem rather...
September 1st, 2010 at 11:57 am
I would prefer nuclear power plant.
Nuclear plants are able to produce electricity.
September 1st, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Wind farm!!! hands down!! Much nicer than power plant stacks! The way I see it, we have a choice: we can continue polluting our planet and have no view except deforested deserted landscape or we can deal with a few windmills and keep the trees and animals.
September 1st, 2010 at 12:47 pm
windfarm, no contest
September 1st, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Without going into the good and bad aspects of both, I much prefer the look of the windfarms. Even though they can take up a good bit of land, they are actually soothing to look at.
September 1st, 2010 at 1:50 pm
I love wind farms! I don’t mind which though as long as the lights don’t going out!
September 1st, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Wind farms I’m afraid have no future and are a blot on the landscape. Wind farms are just one big con.
Nuclear as far as I’m concerned is the lesser of the two evils and will provide generations with power to fuel their needs for years to come.
We can but hope that scientists will come up with a way to harness the waste (plutonium) from these nuclear plants and put it to a good use thus making any by products safe for all and to the environment.
We can but hope!
September 1st, 2010 at 3:04 pm
It doesn’t have to be either or. It should be both and.. We should not put all our eggs in one basket, and should keep developing technologies of all kinds so that they improve.
September 1st, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Kot wind farms do produce electricity. They have hundreds of them in an area near us. (They are on flat farm land which produce corn in Indiana) They are beautiful to watch. The farmers benefit too cause they lease their land and they get a percentage off what they produce. They are also able to farm around them. They actually don’t take up much space. We benefit from lower electrical power prices soon.
Besides, nuclear plants need maintence too and have higher risks(My Dad use to work for one) Also, before they started they did a study to see the effects on the land and also the migration of birds.
Take a look at this:
http://www.earlparkindiana.com/windfarm.html
September 1st, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Wind farms produce peanuts compared to a nuclear power plant. Wind farms also kill birds. They also don’t work unless there is wind.
Wind farms might be a useful additional source of power, but unless you want the whole countryside covered with them, and are prepared to spend loads on maintenance, be prepared for a future without much electricity unless you have access to better energy producers.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:21 pm
A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT WILL PRODUCE MUCH MORE ELECTRICITY ON A MUCH SMALLER SPACE THAN A WIND FARM. THE WIND FARM DOESN’T PRODUCE DANGEROUS SPENT FUEL RODS. I OPT FOR THE WIND FARM.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Wind farm, definitely. Doesn’t anyone remember the Chernobyl disaster in 1986? 32 years on and still unsafe for human habitation.
September 1st, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Wind and solar ‘farms’.
September 1st, 2010 at 5:51 pm
Neither. The ever increasing power of seas around our island would provide everything we require for the future.
Why destroy the natural beauty of the land with wind farms or nuclear power plants
September 1st, 2010 at 5:59 pm
Nuclear powerplant every time. Modern power stations are perfectly safe. Chernobyl was caused by a disregard for safety regulations. Your fear of nuclear power is built on unfounded scaremongering, you need to make an informed decision perhaps do some research yourself, making use of scientific journals more than tabloids.
Additionally per unit area of land a nuclear plant generates more energy more reliably, a wind turbine must be freewheeled when the wind is too high and doesn’t work when the wind is too low.
Also you must consider how long it takes to offset the carbon cost of making a wind turbine compared to a nuclear plant, which used more conventional materials to be constructed.
Realistically though, both must be used in conjunction in order to sustain the power needs of the world.
September 1st, 2010 at 6:28 pm
Yes.
Orla…I hope you made a typo and not a subtraction mistake…it was 22 years ago.
September 1st, 2010 at 7:14 pm
Nuclear Power Plant. You’re safer in a nuclear power plant than you are standing beneath a windmill. I can’t testify about american LWR’s, but a Canadian HWR can withstand a plane being crashed into it without releasing any harmful amount of radioactivity. Standing under a windmill… you’re likely to get run over by a combine, or concussed by a falling bird that was torn out of the sky by a windmill.
If one more person suggests that wind is a better option than nuclear power… we’re going to have to start murdering people on mass in order to prevent this pandemic of ignorance and stupidity once and for all. Wind power is NOT a feasible option for commerical power generation. Period.
September 1st, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Wind farm, because I think nuclear power pants have alot of risks involved, especially with the nuclear waste which also has to get put somewhere, whether its a stable geological structure, or it is just stored somewhere safely, and it lasts for god knows how many years, while wind farms pose no risk to the environment (except for the odd bird that gets chopped…eww) and produces green energy for Britain to use. So maybe they are an eyesore to some people (i personally like the look of them, I think they look quite good loil., maybe thats just me) and they might be noisy, but they are definitely the economical better of the two, and environmentally better too.
🙂 rant over 😛 xx
September 1st, 2010 at 7:28 pm
Wind farms are no scam.
People are reluctant to use them as alot of them are required and they are expensive to set up. They are also unsuitable for certain landscapes that dont get alot of wind.
In the right places they are great sources of energy and are one of the few truly pure and clean sources of energy.
Wind farms all the way!