This seems to be a picture of the reactor as it now is…

http://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/public/assets/news_articles/2012/03/1330587608_oldbury.jpg

Take a look at the ridge line on the left side of the towers.

Ugly and out of place? Absolutely.

If you look at satellite pictures of wind turbines in agricultural areas you will see that they are generally installed along existing farm roads and the cropland is very minimally impacted. In grazing areas there is some road leveling between footings, but within a few months the grass has grown back and livestock are grazing.

You have a somewhat valid point about the mining needed for turbine materials. But if we go there then we need to include the mining needed to produce reactor facilities as well. If you’ve ever been around a reactor then you have some idea of the tremendous amount of steel and concrete involved.

(Although I don’t think you were talking about material mining. You were talking about the area needed for manufacturing. I doubt there’s much difference between wind and nuclear. All that pipe and wire, the reactor dome, the generator, the valves, controls, etc. for nuclear. It has to be manufactured off-site somewhere.)

” once we get nuclear fusion ” – it might just be a race between fusion and unicorn farts. Best we don’t drag our feet waiting for either to save our hindsides….

Let me state that I actually love wind power. It’s the second best form of energy generation we can hope to achieve (behind nuclear fusion), and I agree, NPP’s are dangerous at the best of times and should not be used at all.

But, if your going to include the area used to mine and refine the uranium fuel for NPP’s, you should also include the area used to build and develop wind turbines.

Also, you can’t simply include the area of the BASE of the turbine in the equation. That’s a gross underestimation of the area required to successfully run a wind farm. You MUST include the required distance to separate each wind turbine from each other. You can’t simply put 10 turbines directly in front of one and other and expect to get a ‘normal’ output.

So…
Area of Wind Farm = BASE of turbine + separation factor + construction facilities

Area of NPP = Reactor + Containment & Operation Buildings + Waste Storage + Mining Facilities

Despite my total support for wind power and my strong opposition to nuclear, you can’t ignore the fact that nuclear fission has the overwhelmingly highest energy density of any currently harnessable electricity source available to man.

That might all change though once we get nuclear fusion running… NOW THAT is the single answer to ALL of the world’s energy issues.

Clean, elegant, simple, extremely energy dense, and inherently safe.

But if you were do the math using the actual square footage of wind tower footings and compared that to the area used for these nuclear plants plus all the land used for mining and refining nuclear fuel then you might find that things change.

I’m sure you didn’t intend to shout at us as you posted your uninteresting tidbit….