I love green energy sources, which don’t produce CO2. I have notice that greenpeace and other “eco-friendly” organizations hate nuclear power plants. But the question is why, so let’s see FACTS[Carbon footprint of energy sources through life-cycle (CO2 emitted for construction is also added) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources](https://preview.redd.it/td2rzji6jig11.png?width=944&format=png&auto=webp&s=38e07d5e8251fd46992ce4b4da130e791f20f28c)
As we can see solar, wind, nuclear and hydro emmits least amount of CO2 per KWh of generated energy. But solar emits significantly more than wind, nuclear or hydro. Production of solar panels generates lot of CO2 and in the same time solar panels generate small amount of energy per area. Solar panels also loose efficiency throughout lifetime. Lifetime of solar panel is approximately 30 years.
Next problem with solar panels is area, they need huge amount of land to generate decent amount of energy. For example Solar Star power plant in California covers 13 square kilometres and produces 1,664 GW·h of electricity annualy. So average power output is 1,664,000 MW·h/(365*24h) = 189 MW. So this solar powerplant generates approximately 14.5 MW/km2.
Nuclear powerplant Higashidōri generates 1,100 MW and total area of the site is 4.5 square kilometres. It means 244.4 MW/km2.
So in this case nuclear power plant needs more than 16 times lass space for generating same amount of power as solar. This is why solar power generation should be built on cheap land like deserts. In California it is understandable, because there is little rain, few cloudy days and land in desert is cheap. I am crying when i see in Europe how new photovoltaic panels are being installed on good land where used to be fields and farms. European union is supporting installation of panels and because of this support it could be economical for farmer to sell his land for solar farm.[Here should be field of corn, not solar farm](https://preview.redd.it/3yhjxoz5sig11.png?width=2400&format=png&auto=webp&s=2cd2bfdb94ec11e20464ceca58ddf7ca72d90809)
Most population centers are in areas where there is enough humidity in air and rain is regular and there are many cloudy days. In this conditions is efficiency of solar panels even more decreased and the difference between solar and nuclear is even greater. So in the Europe is solar not reasonable.
Next problem of solar and also wind is energy storage. The Sun is not always shinning, so there must be other power plant, which will generate electricity when there is not enough light. Basically it means thermal power plant burning coal or natural gas. Advantage of thermal power plant is that it’s power output can be modified, so it can be started relatively fast and power goes from 0% to 100% in minutes or few hours, depends on each power plant technology. Maybe you are thinking why not use battery instead? The main problem is cost, battery is really expensive. So today is electricity grid regulated by [Pumped-storage hydroelectricity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity).
Why not using hydro power than? Hydro power generation is great, it’s basically free energy from river, but the problem is that in Europe there are already many dams in rivers, this option is already used there are not many options where to install hydro power plant. Next problem with hydro is that the dam floods the wally and in the wally there is also better land than in the hills, which will not be flooded.
So why do you hate nuclear power plants? Most of the time i hear nuclear waste problem and radiation from nuclear reactor meltdown.
**Nuclear waste** Maybe you think that this is the problem because, there is lot of waste from nuclear reactors, but that is not true because uranium-235 has huge energy density, so the fuel of reactor is replaced once after few years. I have also hear, that just 4% of energy from uranium-235 is used for energy and the rest is waste. That is true, but the waste is well stored under ground and 96% of energy is still there and will be there after hundred years. In future this 96% energy that stayed there can be utilized in breeder reactor. When technology of breeder reactor becomes common, then nuclear waste can be used as energy source. So 96% is not lost, it is stored for future generation, when tech will be available. But the problem is that few nations invest in development of nuclear reactors.
**nuclear reactor meltdown** We all know events from Fukushima and Chernobyl, but the truth is that this events are rare and did not kill so many people. In fact more people dies because of pollution from coal power plants , then from pollution from nuclear power plants. People dies when coal power plant works normally, but in case of nuclear people dies just when something critical fails. The problem happened on oldest types of reactors and safety of new reactor is much higher.
Thanks for reading
And read facts for yourself from wiki and other sources, think critically
View Reddit by OutTell – View Source