wind is safer but i dont think wind alone can provide sufficient energy for everyone. BUT...sooner or later, we will all focus on green energy that means, solar power, wind and so forth..... right now, cost to get solar power is a lot ...also cost to maintain it and such. but in the future, i think we all have to in order to reduce the pollution.
The problem with wind energy is that it's only there when the wind blows. This means that wind energy can only be used for base load power and must be matched up with generation abilities that can kick in when needed to take up the load. There is simply only so much wind energy you can put on the grid before you destabilize the grid. You simply can't have all of your power or even most of your power from wind.
The problem with current solid fuel rod nuclear is that it was designed at a time of war and isn't passively safe. Also only 0.5% to 0.7% of the energy in the rods are extracted, the original idea was that the rods would be reprocessed into new rods but the Carter administration killed the reprocessing plant so now the essentially 99.5% unused rods are nuclear wastes. The use of Uranium 235 as a fuel was because it's decay path produces weapons grad plutonium but it's very rare and has to be isotope refined, if all of our energy were from conventional nuclear reactors, we would only have 65 years of uranium reserves.
However, an alternate technology was tested successfully, it's Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors. It can not melt down, it can not leak, it can not explode, it uses all the energy in the fuel leaving very little waste which only needs to be stored for 300 years and can actually consume existing nuclear wastes. Thorium is plentiful and does not need isotope refinement, there's potentially enough Thorium reserves for tens of thousands of years of power.
Wind is safer, but nuclear has far more energy output.
I'm not sure about the costs for each, but nuclear plants take up less space than wind farms, I think.
There are risks for each. Wind farms could affect bird flights, and nuclear plants are a serious danger if they're in a place with lots of natural disaster. Remember Japan.
If they combine all of the eco-friendly sources of energy - wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, etc. - I would totally go for that.
But if I only had to choose ONE mode of energy generation... Out of all the choices in the world... I'd go hydro :) Unless I live in the desert, in which case solar would be very convenient.
Nuclear means create more enemies, so better I prefer Wind energy for the future to exist.
wind energy
please include safety, impacts on the environment, cost in generating and building, feasibility, planning and how long will it last? thankyou
