Alert icon
We're changing our privacy policy. This stuff matters.  Learn more  Dismiss

Wind power v. nuclear

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
2,770
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Nov 26, 2008

Report: According to a survey, at peak times during the day wind energy is already cheaper for consumers than energy from nuclear or coal-powered sources. A reason to encourage its development.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

License:

Standard YouTube License

  • likes, 3 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Top Comments

  • Wind is bad. You cannot even compare it to nuclear. Wind doesn't even work on our grid. It fluctuates. All it does is put coal-fire power plants on standby and waste energy and make you pay larger bills. They make money off of it. Wind is basically a tick, a parasite. It sucks your money. And nuclear is now the cheapest form of energy. We don't have enough resources to even build a bunch of wind turbines to power USA. Wind and solar don't even provide 0.5% of the USA's power (really it is 0%)

  • Dumbass hippie protesters. This is only barely profitable because it is being subsidized by tax money. France exports alot of their nuclear energy to Germany. Germany is dependent on foreign nuclear. Why don't the German gov. go 100% green and use only wind and solar power. There would be far fewer Germans after thousands have frozen to death after the winter, thus lessening the German carbon footprint. lol

see all

All Comments (10)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • @WarOnWind so where do they get the money to build the nuclear plants? You almost sounded smart.

  • Wind energy. If we took 1 tillion dollars the cost of the wars in you know where. 1 trillion/4 million (estimated cost of scale for a commercial one wind turbine) would net 25 billion wind turbines. One wind turbine can generate 2.5MWh electricity. 2.5MWh can power 350 homes in a northern cold state. 25 billion X 250 homes? I think that pretty much covers the US needs for power. Just having fun here, don't shoot the messenger. We should also continue with nuclear options as well.

  • Note the use of the term "at peak times". What matters however is how much power is produced on average. People don't use power only during times of peak wind and sunshine. The ratio of avg. power to peak power is called the "capacity factor".

    For solar it is only 12-15%, since the sun is only overhead part of the day and not in the sky at night, For wind it might be as much as 20-30%, at *best*.

    Nuclear by contrast, has a capacity factor of 80-99%.

    Wind and solar can't compete.

    FACT.

  • U really learned from the past!! Good Job :-(

  • sorry you didn't include cost to maintain so that return may not be so high. i deliver to the wind farms in west texas and they are always getting replacement parts and hiring crane operators to take off non-operational blades and put up new ones. i am not being ugly just pointing out they cost money to maintain.

  • 250k investment, 30k return per year = approx 8 years return on ivestment. Or 8.3% interest rate, now thats a guuuuut investment.

  • Birds gotta learn to avoid those things.

  • First!!

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more