Sure. The Chernobyl and Fukushima exclusion zones combine to under 4,000 square kilometres. Nuclear power yields 2,731TWh of electricity per year.
Conversely, the world's 200,000 wind turbines yield 350TWh.
By my maths, that means each wind turbine must ruin less than a quarter of a hectare of countryside to break even against nuclear. To quote Wikipedia, "typical modern wind turbines have diameters of 40 to 90 metres", so wind turbines waste more land per kWh than the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents devastated, even before taking into account aesthetic damage to their environs!
I don't think it's fair to characterise this as a class war. People living in Cambridge are paying twice as much for their houses as I am in my quiet rural village. It's more of a town-versus-country war. And well-to-do people can afford houses in national parks, where there are no wind farms.
Meanwhile, I have a friend who lives on top of a disused coal mine up North. The only oddity is that the houses are all one side of the road and the gardens the other, because the land one side can't support the weight of a building. And there's a curious sinkhole behind one of the trees in the garden. But the land's no desolate wasteland. Even back when mining was taking place, I'm willing to bet it caused less eyesore per kWh than a wind farm.
By my understanding, open-cast mining is normally looking for minerals, not fuel.
no subject
Date: 2013-04-05 01:49 pm (UTC)Conversely, the world's 200,000 wind turbines yield 350TWh.
By my maths, that means each wind turbine must ruin less than a quarter of a hectare of countryside to break even against nuclear. To quote Wikipedia, "typical modern wind turbines have diameters of 40 to 90 metres", so wind turbines waste more land per kWh than the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents devastated, even before taking into account aesthetic damage to their environs!
I don't think it's fair to characterise this as a class war. People living in Cambridge are paying twice as much for their houses as I am in my quiet rural village. It's more of a town-versus-country war. And well-to-do people can afford houses in national parks, where there are no wind farms.
Meanwhile, I have a friend who lives on top of a disused coal mine up North. The only oddity is that the houses are all one side of the road and the gardens the other, because the land one side can't support the weight of a building. And there's a curious sinkhole behind one of the trees in the garden. But the land's no desolate wasteland. Even back when mining was taking place, I'm willing to bet it caused less eyesore per kWh than a wind farm.
By my understanding, open-cast mining is normally looking for minerals, not fuel.