Wind turbines are getting bigger, more efficient, and are delivering higher output. That sounds impressive, but it isn't compared to other sources. A single nuclear plant, for example, produces around 1,750 megawatts. To match that, you need roughly 150 large turbines. Wind uses over 100X more land than nuclear... for the same output. And turbines, of course, only produce power when the wind is blowing. Nuclear is constant. Then there's the storage requirements. To make wind reliable, you need batteries. At grid scale, that becomes impossible with current technologies. Wind power remains an expensive pipe dream, lining the pockets of a few at the expense of the many.show more

Trouble is, they won't last any longer...

Also think of all of the raptors that wind turbines kill. Then for the offshore turbines, think of all the whales that these turbines drive nuts with their constant sound underwater.

I heartily disagree with your numbers. If you think in terms of MWH and reliability you’d need more like 1000 wind turbines and batteries as far as the eye can see and a fully operational 100% backup system. Hundreds of billions.

It's worth noting that when the wind isn't producing energy backup sources, usually oil or gas need to be used. Wind power is dirty, really dirty. Nuclear is the only clean option.

“Wind power remains an expensive pipe dream, lining the pockets of a few at the expense of the many” New global capacity additions by percentage Wind 20% (second largest tech after solar) Nuclear 2%

And the windmills still need a backup power plant online 24/7

You also need wind & you need to destroy the environment (tree felling or levelling habitat) & import (very likely) Chinese steel made from coal. The whole idea of wind technology is flawed, it will always be expensive, as you need backup, & unreliable.

Wind turbines economic lifespan is only 10 to 15 years, nuclear 30 to 40 years.

Not at all the same. Wind turbines can't produce reliable power. Nuclear power stations can & can go on doing so day & night for 60 to 70 years wind or no wind before needing much in the way of refurbishing. Long after all wind turbines are piles of hard to recycle toxic waste. Crucially with such long reliable service lives of nuclear power stations you can charge less for the electricity over more than 50 years & still pay off your costs, investments, loans, interest, any subsidies, profits, maintenance etc.

"Wind uses over 100X more land than nuclear… " misrepresents how wind farms are installed in Australia. If they are on grazing land, they have no impact on its productive use. They are not installed on crop farms. Oz is a big place. We don't much care about this non-issue.

The cost of decommissioning Sellafield nuclear power station was budgeted at £114 billion in 2019. That’s since risen to £136 billion (source: national audit office). All of course paid for by UK taxpayers. Now tell me again that wind is expensive.

Not to mention, a NPS lasts up to 80yrs providing reliable industry strength base load power 24/7 while wind turbines last about 20yrs, if you're lucky, are unreliable, hyperexpensive to maintain & require base load backup to keep them operational when da wind don't blow RE= SCAM

Looks like Natural Gas comes out on top from this energy density graph. Wind is barely worth mentioning since it takes up so much space and can be very intermittant, relying on back-up from conventional energy sources

Very disingenuous re batteries. H2, pumped hydro and community heating systems using heatsinks would also be employed, the battery arrays would only be to smooth the grid as it swaps over from one to the other.

Spot on. Can't beat physics with wishful thinking. Nuclear keeps the lights on. Wind just keeps the lobbyists rich.

“A single nuclear plant, for example, produces around 1,750 megawatts. To match that, you need roughly 150 large turbines.” Except you’re ignoring the rest of the infrastructure needed to support nuclear power plants…mining/refining/waste disposal for starters.

Some questions for Ed Millipede. How many wind turbine would be requited to match a nuclear power station, when there is no wind? What energy source will be used, when there is no wind? RE

A nuclear plant costs $80B-$100B and takes as long as two decades to build. Equivalent wind capacity can be built for $10-$15B in a much shorter time frame.

Now do cost and time to implementation. Renewables crush nuclear there.

"A single nuclear plant, for example, produces around 1,750 megawatts." There's no single nuclear reactor that produces 1750MW or more. To have a plant that produces that much, you need to have at least 2 reactors in the plant.

when a wind turbine fails, it's usually with minimal collateral damage (as the space around them is usually clear of human presence)... when a nuclear power plant fails, it's affects are felt for decades/centuries

All wind turbines produce LFN and EAM noise pollution leading to sleep deprivation and home abandonment the whomp whomp whomp as the blades pass the tower is torture, in the UK ETSU-97 doesn't offer any protection to affected residents, utterly shocking

Funny point is that the more wind plants, the more (paid) "cannibalization" takes place among them.

The great success of nuclear worldwide since 1985: Maybe the economics of nuclear isn't really competitive after all. What it's useful for, though, is to keep technicians and knowledge about nuclear power tech in the country. For the purpose of weapons manufacturing.

So why's it so hard finding a site for a nuclear power plant then?

@OtherBellamy Eyesores ruining the beautiful landscapes of our country.

@Konrad_Chapman Wreaking havoc on nature in the name of saving the environment… what a scam “green” energy is

Don't forget the whales!

In Scotland we can build 150 offshore turbines in 3 yrs, it will take your donors 20 years to get Hinkley point up and running,

But while you're building that nuke plant for 5-10 years what is the energy being used? Wind, solar or coal? Yes nuke power plants are more efficient & take less space but what's powering your lights at night while you wait for that plant to be built wind or coal?

@RobertD85962257 Don’t forget to mention that each turbine needs a 100 gallons of oil to work as well…unbelievable

Power generation seems like a religious belief. Can political forces discuss alternatives and options? Or do we have to endlessly fight in opposite corners defending a work in progress solution that has long term benefits and shortcomings. Nuclear would be great but it takes so long to build. We have to do both but gas is going to be expensive. Alternatives are needed in the medium term.

time to get grow up and get real about this

And the nuclear plant produces power 24/7, regardless of weather.

Nuclear is cool! In Finland they are placing thousands of tons of nuclear waste in copper canisters, surrounded by bentonite clay, and sealing them in bedrock tunnels ~430-450 meters underground. Then checking on them regularly over the next 10000 years. No worries!