Originally posted by @wildgrass
"Getting rid of the waste" is not a danger of nuclear. It's a problem. Newly constructed nuclear plants actually reuse some of the waste. There's still waste in the end but it's pennies compared to coal.
The real issue here (to Metal Brain's questions): What power source is the least impactful and most sustainable long term? Weigh the pros and cons. Ig ...[text shortened]... the amount of energy needed, the land use for many alternative energy sources is not practical.
Ignore fusion because it's science fiction.
No it isn't. It is perfectly credible. It just hasn't been devolved yet and there are no laws of physics implying it cannot be done and it definitely CAN be done. But probably by the time it is developed, we will have so much well developed renewable power such as solar that there be no point in it.
Windmills are great but they kill birds
not more than cars or coal power.
There is no evidence that bird populations are generally measurably reduced in arrears with windmills.
"...Despite these concerns, the current body of research suggests windfarms have not significantly reduced bird populations.
the RSPB’s conservation director, Martin Harper, says a large body of scientific evidence shows “appropriately located windfarms have negligible impacts” on bird populations.
cost a lot of money,
so do nuclear power stations (and I am not against nuclear power)
and they ruin landscapes.
That is debatable as it is subjective. Some say so do nuclear power stations (and I am not against nuclear power)
Solar is great but it requires silicon mining
Nuclear fission power also requires mining and much more dangerous mining at that.
+ In case you didn't already know, unlike with radioactive metals, silicon will never be in short supply.
+ future solar panels probably won't even use silicon.
and needs a huge surface area (By some estimates, a solar plant the size of California might provide enough daytime energy to power the US. That's too much land).
By what kind of estimate produces such an absurd estimate?
"...Sunlight Striking Earth’s Surface in Just One Hour Delivers Enough Energy to Power the World Economy for an Entire Year..."
There are about ~8,544 hours in one year.
The Earth has about 510,000,000 km^2 surface area.
510,000,000 km^2 / 8544 ~= 60,000 km^2
Lets assume that these solar panels are 20% energy efficient (many on the market already have higher efficiencies and no doubt future solar panels will eventually
reach over 90% energy efficiency; it is just a question of when);
That means 60,000 * 100/20 = ~300,000 km^2 area of solar panels would be enough alone to power all the (human) world.
California is 423,970 km^2 in area.
Thus by any reasonable estimate, with energy storage and supergrid, a solar plant the size of California should be enough to power the whole (human) WORLD.
Obviously nobody is suggesting that all the solar panels must be put in the same area of the world. I presume most will go on roof-tops.
+ who is saying we must only use solar power alone and not include other renewables?
I have no axe to grind against nuclear but at the moment wind power seems to be generally a much cheaper cost effective and practical alternative.