From a reader: Look at the footprint of solar panels it takes to produce the same amount as a nuclear plant, then tell me what’s better for the Earth!

Needless to say, I’ve heard this a great many times over the years.  The subject is a bit complex.

While it’s true that nuclear offers far better energy density that solar (and wind), this is one of many criteria we use to determine the best resource(s).  We might rank our presidents on the basis of how few wars the Unites States was fighting during their tenure in office, yet there are dozens of other important criteria: economic strength, lessening the gaps between rich and poor, etc.

Another way to look at this subject is to look at competing resources in a certain region.  The central part of the U.S. has incredible wind resources; a normal day in the Nebraska grid-mix offers 70% wind.

If human civilization is to avoid environmental collapse driven by climate change, nuclear is going to be absolutely necessary, but only partially due to energy density; nuclear boasts high reliability and capacity factor, as well as low operating expenses.

In all, the world needs to hope that nuclear advances quickly; we won’t do well without it.

Thanks for the comment.

Why Nuclear?