An intersting comparison between the space requirements of wind turbines with that of a nuclear power plant [📹Klimavenner]

Bad faith animation. Wind turbines need less space than shown since their area is multi-use. Nucelar reactors need much more than shown. The whole ~5 square km peninsular of Olkiluoto is basically off limits and used for electricity/housing for the reactor.

Nuclear is the future! ⚛️

Nuclear over wind for the win.. This is not to say that renewable wind energy is bad or useless, but at the scale of which you would need turbines to truly be effective, you would be causing more damage environmentally than you're trying to save, also with wildlife.

yeah, but wind doesn't have radioactive waste.

True but ther windmills use free energy from mother nature. The Nuclear plant is besides very danagerous if something goes wrong responsible for nuclear waste which does not decrease in radiation for thousands of years.

Anyone who has Ever played SimCity already knows this.

@uraniuminsider It's alarming that wind takes up so much land and sea in comparison to nuclear 🤯

We need more nuclear then.

Nuclear (with earthquake mitigation designed in, unlike Fukushima) is an IQ test. If you like the multimillion dollar bird life chopping eye sores across thousands of square kilometers pf earth, over a reactor that runs for centuries, you might be mid. Tangentially: It's like the pacific garbage patch (that is never filmed or photographed (except closeup hmmm, only written about in MSM). If you care more about the clean up than the polluters, then you prob also like turbines over nuclear.

Except wind turbines don’t actually take up that much space. You can still have a field, ocean, forest, desert, whatever under it. Nuclear reactors take up a lot of space and don’t allow for anything else to be there, especially wildlife.