best solution.
Nuclear is 'reliable', but too many problems with it. It uses lots of land, lots of construction materials and needs a constant source of water.
The main problem with nuclear is the risk of radiation and the nuclear waste that is produced, which needs storage for thousands of years.
Wind turbines are simple engineering and (along with solar panels) can be erected quickly.They can also be moved to new locations, if the wind patterns change.The land can still be used for grazing or even crop growing.Even when a nuclear power station is decommissoned (dismantled), the land cannot be reused.
I am a strong believer in all of those energy sources. However, wind farms can only be in windy areas and while the sun is everywhere it is only up for certain hours a day. Nuclear is the only steady power source that can be used anywhere at anytime. Once we develop nuclear fusion which is the no-waste power source of the sun I am sure it will take the place of all of those energy sources including all fossil fuels. Were so close!
It depends on which nuclear. Conventional light water reactors were designed to produce weapons grade plutonium period. They only extract 0.5% of the energy in the fuel rods before the rods have too many cracks and fissures to use safely, the idea was to reprocess them but the Carter administration stopped the reprocessing plant construction so now we have large amounts of transuranic nuclear wastes which takes 30,000 years to decay. The reactors are pressurized so the water can reach the temperatures needed hence they can explode, Fukishima was pressure explosions not nuclear. Solid fuel rods are poor heat conductors so the spent fuel rods must be actively cooled by water for ten years before they can be handled plus the reactor is the most dangerous when shutdown and requires power to safely stay shutdown which is why the Fukishima disaster occurred, if their operating procedure was not to shut down at the slightest hint of trouble, the Fukishima disaster would not have occurred. However, the solid fuel rods requires that replacement fuel rods be purchased from the reactor manufacturer allowing the manufacturer to direct the economic benefits towards themselves much as inkjet printer manufacturers do.
There was a competing concept called Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors that was successfully operated from 1965-1969. IIt could not melt down, it could not leak, it could not explode, it safely shuts down if power is cut, it does not require power to stay shutdown, it reprocesses it's fuel constantly extracting nearly all of it leaving very little waste which only needs to be stored for 300 years, it can also consume existing nuclear waste as fuel. However the military didn't need it once the atomic plane was canceled, the government didn't want it as it did not require an army of technicians to keep it safe so it did not generate employment and the reactor manufacturers didn't want it because there was no solid fuel rods to direct the profits to them.
If it's LFTR nuclear which China has announced they will build to claim the intellectual property rights to it ( they benefit from the low cost power allowing them to continue their economic dominance even as their cheap labor becomes more costly ), then the choice will be nuclear as unlike uranium, thorium is so common that we will never run out, indeed Earth's molten mantle and outer core is heated by it.
Best, by means of availability and efficiency is the solar power as it is widely available.
Best, by means of covered area and production is the nuclear power, but it is the most highly critical and dangerous source of power as it can cause physical/metal and/or heredity deterioration, mortality, and other infrastructure damage.
Wind turbines are not that best as you need a proper location were air is abundant and a wide area where the structures can stand to each other undisturbed.
Nevertheless, solar is best for me.
All of them have there pros and cons.
1. Solar - It provides a lot of energy, but takes a lot of time
2. Wind - It provides energy in less amount of time, but because of the noise pollution it creates, many birds and animals die out of fear.
3. Nuclear - Creates huge amount of energy, but the dangerous part is that it releases radioactive wastes.
Between all of them, I think Solar energy is the best, although one may has to put a lot of capital in setting it up.
Unfortunately, contrary to popular belief the only power source that can meet our demands is nuclear. All the other technologies combined can't give us the energy we've grown accustomed to with fossil fuels. We would have to radically change our lifestyle to go with anything but nuclear. What we need is safe fusion technology. That's the nuclear force that powers the Sun and doesn't generate the waste that is so problematic..
Solar is good but the sun is not out 24/7
Wind is not always blowing
So...
Personally I like wind to power the best.
Wind.
Hang a balloon in a tree and watch it light up as the sun goes down.. Insects will come and turn the balloon , causing it to generate static electricity and you can power one light bulb from it..
The sun itself.
anything but nuclear, to much risk with nuclear and you have the trash to store for eons!
Solar energy is better as it is large, free and effective...
i would prefer solar as it is renewable sourse of energy which can be used again and again.
all of them have their pros and cons so i would say it depends on the location and other evniormental things.
None. Cow farts every time.
