What would you prefer to see on the landscape? A wind farm or a nuclear power plant?

Question

It is less dangerous to have a wind farm than a nuclear power plant. It also costs less to build a wind farm than it does to build or dismantle a nuclear power plant.

Answer 1

Wind farms produce peanuts compared to a nuclear power plant. Wind farms also kill birds. They also don't work unless there is wind.

Wind farms might be a useful additional source of power, but unless you want the whole countryside covered with them, and are prepared to spend loads on maintenance, be prepared for a future without much electricity unless you have access to better energy producers.

Answer 2

Nuclear Power Plant.  You're safer in a nuclear power plant than you are standing beneath a windmill.  I can't testify about american LWR's, but a Canadian HWR can withstand a plane being crashed into it without releasing any harmful amount of radioactivity.  Standing under a windmill... you're likely to get run over by a combine, or concussed by a falling bird that was torn out of the sky by a windmill.  

If one more person suggests that wind is a better option than nuclear power... we're going to have to start murdering people on mass in order to prevent this pandemic of ignorance and stupidity once and for all.   Wind power is NOT a feasible option for commerical power generation. Period.

Answer 3

I love wind farms!  I don't mind which though as long as the lights don't going out!

Answer 4

Wind farms I'm afraid have no future and are a blot on the landscape. Wind farms are just one big con.

Nuclear as far as I'm concerned is the lesser of the two evils and will provide generations with power to fuel their needs for years to come.

We can but hope that scientists will come up with a way to harness the waste (plutonium) from these nuclear plants and put it to a good use thus making any by products safe for all and to the environment.

We can but hope!

Answer 5

Wind farm!!! hands down!!  Much nicer than power plant stacks!  The way I see it, we have a choice:  we can continue polluting our planet and have no view except deforested deserted landscape or we can deal with a few windmills and keep the trees and animals.

Answer 6

Nuclear powerplant every time. Modern power stations are perfectly safe. Chernobyl was caused by a disregard for safety regulations. Your fear of nuclear power is built on unfounded scaremongering, you need to make an informed decision perhaps do some research yourself, making use of scientific journals more than tabloids.

Additionally per unit area of land a nuclear plant generates more energy more reliably, a wind turbine must be freewheeled when the wind is too high and doesn't work when the wind is too low.

Also you must consider how long it takes to offset the carbon cost of making a wind turbine compared to a nuclear plant, which used more conventional materials to be constructed.

Realistically though, both must be used in conjunction in order to sustain the power needs of the world.

Answer 7

I would prefer nuclear power plant.

Nuclear plants are able to produce electricity.

Answer 8

Kot  wind farms do produce electricity.  They have hundreds of them in an area near us. (They are on flat farm land which produce corn in Indiana)  They are beautiful to watch.  The farmers benefit too cause they lease their land and they get a percentage off what they produce.  They are also able to farm around them.  They actually don't take up much space.  We benefit from lower electrical power prices soon.

Besides, nuclear plants need maintence too and have higher risks(My Dad use to work for one)  Also, before they started they did a study to see the effects on the land and also the migration of birds.

Take a look at this:

http://www.earlparkindiana.com/windfarm....

Answer 9

Neither. The  ever increasing power of seas around our island would provide everything we require for the future.

Why destroy the natural beauty of the land with wind farms or nuclear power plants

Answer 10

Wind farm, definitely. Doesn't anyone remember the Chernobyl disaster in 1986? 32 years on and still unsafe for human habitation.

Answer 11

Without going into the good and bad aspects of both, I much prefer the look of the windfarms. Even though they can take up a good bit of land, they are actually soothing to look at.

Answer 12

Wind farm, because I think nuclear power pants have alot of risks involved, especially with the nuclear waste which also has to get put somewhere, whether its a stable geological structure, or it is just stored somewhere safely, and it lasts for god knows how many years, while wind farms pose no risk to the environment (except for the odd bird that gets chopped...eww) and produces green energy for Britain to use. So maybe they are an eyesore to some people (i personally like the look of them, I think they look quite good loil., maybe thats just me) and they might be noisy, but they are definitely the economical better of the two, and environmentally better too.

:) rant over :P xx

Answer 13

A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT WILL PRODUCE MUCH MORE ELECTRICITY ON A MUCH SMALLER SPACE THAN A WIND FARM. THE WIND FARM DOESN'T PRODUCE DANGEROUS SPENT FUEL RODS. I OPT FOR THE WIND FARM.

Answer 14

windfarm, no contest

Answer 15

It doesn't have to be either or.  It should be both and.. We should not put all our eggs in one basket, and should keep developing technologies of all kinds so that they improve.

Answer 16

Wind farms are no scam.

People are reluctant to use them as alot of them are required and they are expensive to set up. They are also unsuitable for certain landscapes that dont get alot of wind.

In the right places they are great sources of energy  and are one of the few truly pure and clean sources of energy.

Wind farms all the way!

Answer 17

Wind and solar 'farms'.

Answer 18

Yes.

Orla...I hope you made a typo and not a subtraction mistake...it was 22 years ago.