Nuclear Power Vs. Windmills, Which is Better?

Question

Nuclear power's biggest problems are economic: it is simply no longer competitive with other, newer forms of power generation. The final 20 U.S. reactors cost $3 to $4 billion to build, or some $3,000 to $4,000 per kilowatt of capacity. By contrast, new gas-fired combined cycle plants using the latest jet engine technology cost $400-$600 per kilowatt, and wind turbines are being installed at less than $1,000 per kilowatt.

Windmill power contracts were signed with power sold at three (3) CENTS per Kw-hr. Less than half the price of the most efficient solar cell panels.

Answer 1

Windmills do have their place-- here in Texas Boone Pickens is planning a multi-megawatt wind farm in West Texas where the wind blows FREQUENTLY! -- however the transmission lines and right a ways are going to cost 1-2 Billion dollars! --- to bring the power where it is needed. Wind and Solar should be part of the MIX of energy sources with nuclear being the key component.

The cost can be mitigated if we pick ONE design and replicate it over and over again--- without having to fight environmental lawsuits for at least a DECADE during construction.

Answer 2

The problem is that wind farms are no where near producing sufficient and dependable power. Give me a nuke plant any time of the day.

Answer 3

Nuke plants are best.  In Michigan, wind just doesn't low continually enough to support a wind farm, and there's only a few days out of the year when the wind is strong enough to be of any significance.

We could reduce costs of nuke plants by reusing spent fuel rods instead of the stupid superstitious policy of burying them in million dollar holes.  Other countries do it, why not us?

Answer 4

There's no reason for it to be an either or situation.  Both can be used as needed, along with several other technologies (e.g. tidal, geothermal, solar).

There isn't enough nuclear for all our countries power needs, but we could increase it.  There's also not a chance we'll meet all the needs in the near term by wind alone.  So I say build large solar plants where the sun shines, large wind facilities where the wind blows, tidal power plants near the ocean, and geothermal steam plants where hot rocks are close to the surface.

Answer 5

I think a technology designed to utilize the natural movement of ocean currents for energy would be even better.

Answer 6

wind mills takes up more space but is more cleaner. i think cleaner is better

Answer 7

Problem with windmills is they cannot product the massive volume of electricity that a reactor can. Your comparison of cost while accurate is a little misleading in making it sound like they are equal generators, which they are not.

I live in an area that doesn't have enough wind to support windmill farms so we have to rely on nuclear.

Also have you ever stood near a windmill farm? their is quite a but of noise

Answer 8

Neither one is better or the best solution. Solar thermal is more promising, it's already competitive with coal-fired generation and it will only get cheaper. The only problem is storing power for dark hours, but since it's thermal the heat can be stored in a variety of mediums and later used to power a turbine.

Nuclear could be done much more sensibly but the emphasis tends to be on massive facilities and that makes each one expensive. It also makes it easier to keep them secure and monitor them for safety. With new technology they're much more efficient and produce much less waste since it can now be recycled.

Wind power is complementary to solar but it does kill a number of birds every year. If we committed to solar thermal, putting plants into an area half the size of Elko County Nevada would provide enough electricity to fulfill all current power demands in the US. Smaller plants are obviously better since power is lost over long transmission lines but it does give an idea of how efficient it is and it's still a fairly new technology. Wind is often available at night when solar is not being generated so combining the two makes sense.

Nuclear seems to be a way to keep power generation in the hands of monopolies and monolithic utility companies but it may be required if Lieberman-Warner forces us to move quickly off of oil. But building a dozen new plants at current costs is going to be a major investment.

Answer 9

Not to mention the trend:

* The cost for nuclear waste storage keeps increasing

* The cost for enriched uranium keeps increasing

* The cost for wind power keeps decreasing

It's all about looking in the past, the present or toward a brighter future.

Answer 10

wind mills have to be built in special areas and that takes a bit of research to find. Power plants are good because windmills have to be built in the hundreds and thats not really cheap and power plants can be tonnes cheaper + more jobs generated in nuclear power plants then windmill farms.

Answer 11

When judging better/worse cases for energy sources, the most important variable is efficiency. Nuclear power by far outpaces any other production source for the sheer kW production per unit of input. Nuclear energy is also up 100% of the time, as opposed to base load and variable load coal or gas fed engines that require vast energy to start up.

natural energy sources, including wind, solar and geothermal generate less than 15% of the available energy today, and cannot service industrial energy by themselves. of course, their use should be increased as an auxiliary source though. My guess is, their efficiency ratio will go up sharply in coming years as commercial R&D really shifts to alternative energy.

Answer 12

Generally speaking wind is much better.

It's cheaper, 100% clean after construction, and completely renewable.

Nuclear is pretty clean, but still requires uranium mining.  Additionally, you have to find a disposal method for the nuclear waste, you need qualified and experienced nuclear engineers to run the facility, and uranium is a non-renewable resource.

The benefit of nuclear is that one plant can provide a lot of power, and whenever it's needed, whereas windmills are dependent on the wind speed.  Overall, wind power clearly has more pros, but we do still need some nuclear power to provide the base load.

Answer 13

Nuclear power is competitive, some of the strongest generating companies in the US use nuclear.

Nuclear is also reliable whereas wind is not.

Don't get me wrong, I like wind, but you cannot meet peak power demand with wind, while you can, and we do, with nuclear.   Wind is a great source of baseload power and I think you actually overstate the price per kWh - because of that factor wind can meet up to 20% of a grid's baseload demand (the grid automatically switches to the cheapest available power).

But it's not a "versus" argument - - we need a reliable source of peak power and we could use as many cheap sources of baseload power as we can find - - and wind certainly is grossly underdeveloped.