Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
Comments
NEI's position must be that nuclear power is unequivocally superior to diffuse power, such as wind or solar. Nuclear power has no weakness that wind power can address. Nuclear power is just as safe and environmentally friendly as diffuse power (actually more so), yet emphatically superior in terms of reliability, capacity factor and scalability.
Whenever I hear that wind power and nuclear power can work together, I think of Stacy King. Who is Stacy King? Stacy King was a teammate of Michael Jordan's. One night, MJ dropped 69 points. When asked about MJ's performance, Stacy King said, "I'll always remember this as the night MJ and I combined to score 70 points." So yeah, wind power and nuclear power work together, just like Stacy King and Michael Jordan.
Wind is indeed free. If wind turbines were free, one could make a lot of money selling electricity when the wind blows. In actuality, wind turbines are expensive because it takes a lot of steel and concrete to build a machine that can harvest power from a low-energy density source.
Given the 3 candidates now remaining in the race, we will have carbon controls in place in the next couple of years. As long as we keep the government from mandating energy technology via a national "renewable energy portfolio standard," we will then see how the economics of low-carbon wind, nuclear, and carbon capture and sequestration really compare. Should be interesting.