Solar, Wind, Water or Nuclear? that is Question

kjc.jpg

The Debate is raging at present over which source of power and energy production is the best  greenest and safest.

They all seem to have a down side, Yes even the renewables…..

Wind Farms ….. it is being said are noisy and can harm flying creatures as they can be hit by the propellars.. bit silly but this is one of the arguements.. they also take up large tracks of land ….

Solar ….. Use vast amounts of land and the reflected light could warm the atmosphere…. hmmm

Water/Hydro…. in Australia we have so little water what happens in a drought…

Nuclear … well this should be obvious…. the waste product is just horendous…

So Which of these do you feel will provide the greatest good for humanity in the battle against climate change…

Is a combination of all the only way, using only renewable and leave out the Nuclear, or should we continue on as we are with the coal fired power stations of the past..

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Solar, Wind, Water or Nuclear? that is Question

  1. I think anything has to be better then coal, but the solution is unlikely to be a ‘one size fits all’ sort of solution. Here in Canada, there are areas where hydro is by far the best asset. Manitoba for example (a province) has enough waterfalls and rivers to power much of the country … but only for about 1/3 of the year before many of them freeze. The prairies, northern territories and east coast regions seem to offer endless wind generating possibilities (and even tidal power in some places, ie Bay of Fundy), but they certainly are not going to be worth squat in a desert where Solar may provide the best solution. Like all medicines, to be effective the cure must be customized to the patient and the move from carbon power plants must be adapted to each area. As time goes on, other opportunities will no doubt be presented and require review, but these ‘Renewable’ forms are still better then the current status quo.
    Even nuclear.

    Like

  2. I don’t think wind farms take up much land at all after they are constructed. A large-scale wind farm can be smack dab in the middle of corn fields or CRP pastures.

    Like

  3. please get real,the oil,gas and coal reserves of the planet should be used first (as efficiently as possible) for the simple reason they are the most cost effective ,they would still be needed as backup (90%)when the utopian schemes don’t work,all the fixed power requirements will be provided by nuclear power (like france) wether you like it or not,unless of course you want to be a third world country with a pigmy economy that eventually gets invaded and its fossil fuel reserves exploited by your conquerors, for themselves!,exploit all the vast reserves that remain,coal alone can provide synthetic fuel for transport for centuries,the germans fought six years of war on ersatz fuel and rubber,so stop being worried about global warming it’s always been getting colder or hotter without our help,the world isn’t about to burst into flames or gas us all,or fry us for that matter,so get off your butt go down to the chysler dealer and order up a 300c fully loaded and enjoy,if you don’t someone else will.

    Like

  4. Nice blog. I think that all the sources can be good with certain control. After seeing your picture of that huge extension of solar panels or other pictures showing millions of windmills in a big territory screwing the landscape I wonder if nuclear is a bad option, at least it looks to me as greener, which could sound a little bit contradictory but you can create more energy with nuclear plants and with less impact in the landscape. Of course the best will be if each house provides its own energy but I think that nuclear power is something to think about.

    Like

  5. Wind/Solar-say too expensive, consumes a lot of land. Also, how many wind generators or solar panels do you think we will need to replace on coal plant??? Solar and wind is just a nice back-up with 0 emissions, but only .1 efficiency. Don’t understand what do you mean by water. If you are talking about energy of river dams then all rivers have dams already. If you are talking about hydrogen fuel, then you don’t understand that it doesn’t produce energy, it just stores it, kind of like a battery. You need energy to charge that hydrogen first. Nuclear is the best way to go, a lot of power, almost no pollution (except for heating up of water reservoir that power plant is using) and the wast can be stored safely and dealt with later. So: nuclear plants charge hydrogen cars and heat houses, solar and wind are used on a small scale (local energy), oil and coal can be used as an exception in some cases, especially until all the nuclear plants and solar/wind farms are built.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s