[xlpz]

What potentially devastating consequences would there be if instead of a nuclear plant a windmill had been hit by an earthquake, tsunami and explosion? I honestly fail to be impressed by this kind of reasoning about nuclear energy's safety.

Disclaimer: I still think fission power might be better in the long run than coal power (catastrophic global warming is worse than any nuclear disaster), but I'd rather do without either and strive for 100% renewable energies. It can be done, just needs the willingness to do it.

[ErrantX]

The problem is that you can't (currently) replace that nuclear plant with a Windmill (or even a few Windmills) because the power production is still not high enough.

So I don't feel that is an entirely fair comparison.

What if such an event had hit, say, an Oil fired power station - you'd likely be looking at a reasonable level local oil contamination, and probably a large fire. I don't know how much more likely that such an event would be to happen but I am going to guess that safety and fail safes at fossil fuel stations are not quite the same as at a nuclear plant :)

(in terms of your last point; it totally can. But practically speaking it is something that has to start at home. Millions of people can afford solar panels on their home; but they mostly don't bother (and some moan about the lack of action...!). And we could be pressuring local government to introduce housing regs requiring new builds to have solar panels.)

[xlpz]

I never said it'd easy, or that it wouldn't cost money. Everything costs money. Nuclear power plants are expensive, and they have vast hidden costs that are offset to society (how much will it cost to Japan to clean up this mess? is this added to the cost?). Many countries are already getting a very significant percentage of their energy from renewable sources, things like solar power or wind power are getting more efficient by the day, and if a real, massive and sustained investment was done in this area I think we wouldn't be having debates like this one in 10 years. And I won't even enter to discuss topics like energy independence, which are huge.

Anyway, clearly a complicated issue, not trying to convince anyone here of anything.

[ErrantX]

I disagree as it happens, I think it is actually not all that hard to make a major impact without getting serious govt. funding (which sadly is like squeezing blood from a stone). All it requires is for those people with enough funds to go out and buy solar panels for their roofs.

Even my parents, who are not exactly the most well off people, can afford (and have bought) solar panels. It doesn't make them self sufficient - but if everyone in the town (that could) did it that is a massive impact!

We had a survey here recently - in the town of about 15,000 people only 48 had solar panels. The statistics from ONS for the area suggest that at least 20% of the residents could afford solar panels.

Just saying :P

[ckuehne]

"but if everyone in the town (that could) did it that is a massive impact!"

No, it is not: http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c6/page_39....

[ErrantX]

I'm not entirely sure that is as negative as it sounds. My average consumption is about 4KW/h per day. I just checked with my parents and they, with a multi-computer a home office, use about 6KW/h per day. So lets take that as an average.

Our systems account for about 2KW/h per person, per day. So that is about 30% of our own energy consumption.

15,000 ppl @ 6KW/h = 90,000 KW/h

3,000 ppl (20%) generating 2KW/h = 6,000 KW/h

That's 6% of the towns energy generation.

Which might not sound a lot, true. But on the other hand commercial renewable energy production in the UK accounts for about the same amount (8 ish percent I believe). So if everyone did it that would double renewable energy production.

I find that significant :)

I admit to "over egging" the ease, and being extremely optimistic in terms of the coverage and uptake of such a mass social movement :) but I still think it is something we all should try.

[scotch_drinker]

Anything can be done but at what cost? Along with that willingness must also come the understanding that the standard of living for the majority of the planet's population will be lowered, probably dramatically in some places. Renewable energy, to this point, has been much more expensive than non-renewable energy and this has allowed the human species to enjoy a reasonably high standard of living, especially in the developed world. Now, the developing world wants part of that and telling them they have to use renewable energy seems rather disingenuous to me.

Renewable energy is entirely possible but it's a truly difficult problem, not just technologically but from a cost-benefit side as well.

[asharp]

What potentially devastating consequences would there be if an oil rig had been hit by an earthquake, tsunami and explosion? Also consider the size of an oil rig(s) that would need to provide the same amount of energy.

Similarly, what would the consequences be if a chemical plant producing say pesticides were to undergo the same fate? Simply because a process may be dangerous doesn't mean that it can't be safely harnessed into the service of man.

[CountHackulus]

That one windmill won't provide near the power output of one nuclear reactor. It would be more like an entire windmill farm getting hit. Also, look at what happened to the coal plants; fires everywhere and explosions at the oil refineries. The nuclear plants look far safer to me. Don't try and use hydro as an example of safe power lest we forget what happened in China recently.

[newguy889]

How much land needs to be paved over with windmills to equal the power output of one nuclear plant?

[afterburner]

A handful of square meters per windmill, unless it's off shore and then it's none (as in no land). You realize windmills for energy production dots the Danish landscape, placed in handfuls in the middle of farms, right?

[foobarbazetc]

Yeah, but Denmark has a population of 5.5 million people and ample land for them and windmills.