Green Peace Leader Rags on Solar Power

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007;239099[FONT=Arial

In regard to your workings here, in terms of land usage alone, it appears you have not factored in land used in uranium exploration and mining, waste disposal and storage, processing of materials, manufacturing of plant and equipment and a host of other factors too long to spend time listing and researching. That speaks volumes about my confidence in the value of taking this discussion to the nth degree. I think that is reason enough, for people not to invest too much more time pondering the combinatorial possibilities associated with various power generation plant types and configurations on this thread. [/font]

First of all, I'll point to the fact they are not my workings, and they are clearly "quotes", so I'm puzzled why you attribute them to me.

Secondly, the mining issue will not be significent given:
a. One mine will serve many sites
b. Said mines are used for other minerals anyway not used in the nuclear industry.

Disposal by deep burial, which is the long term norm takes up such little space as to be insignificent. Especially in terms of ground level usage.

I would rather defer to industry reports, of which there are many, because this is a prime example of what appears to be an incomplete, erroneous and misleading assessment and unfortunately, I and I suspect others would not view these calculations you have made with great confidence. As mentioned, all technologies have limitations and yes some limitations are dictated by common laws of nature. Many technologies also have environmental impact in one form or another. Thus by all means work things over for your own piece of mind, but kindly excuse me and the hopefully enlightened crowd, whilst other pressing matters are attended to.
[/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font]

You ask to be excused, and yet you still replied. Even more puzzling.
Like you, I saw some interesting info that I thought worth putting. If you feel disinclined to comment, you're not forced to.

[LMagic007]

Firstly the link you posted does not show any information you have allegedly quoted. It looks like one may need an account to access it ? thus effectively a "dead link" ?


Secondly, quoting remarks from another chat forum from an unknown source ( perhaps Joe Blogs ? ), is a very dubious way of building a case one way or the other.

Thirdly as mentioned, with all your views in mind and the views you have presented on the nuclear power land use issue, government, industry and other industry commentators, don't seem to agree with your posted information, on the amount of land per megawatt for nuclear energy. It may pay you do conduct your own research, rather than just quote the words of some mystery forum poster.

All evidence from information "out there" via web, suggests that the figures you have presented are way wrong. Yet you seem to present this info in this thread, as presumably somehow having credibility. Otherwise why bother posting the information, if you did not think it had merit. A reasonable person would not knowingly present incredible information as credible and yet this information you have posted appears grossly lacking in accuracy and hence credibility.

Originally Posted by Wobs

"Two nuclear plants were evaluated for power density. One produces 2400 MW on 650 acres, resulting in 0.27 acres / MW. Another nuclear power plant 50 miles west of Phoenix, generates 4000 MW on 1000 acres or 0.25 acres / MW."

Your point b ( below ) seems far from conclusive. In regard to point b. though even if the actual nuclear waste storage site might be comparatively small, the buffer zone of land that has to be secured is larger. Overriding this though, even US government seems to suggest a minimum range of 5 to 10 acres per MW for nuclear. This blows out your posted .27 acres per MW nuclear power estimate 18 to 36 fold. Other sites suggest much more land is required for nuclear per MW. i.e. some more extreme indicating up to 70 acres per MW for nuclear.

By all means post information of interest, but at least show it to have at least some substantive credibility. Your post about land usage for nuclear energy, on the face of it, appears plainly unconvincing. Yes one does wonder if it's worth the effort, sometimes. I have not seen one link or reference to any credible source from you, that indicates on balance that Solar Thermal will not have a significant future impact on our energy mix. If we are to rely on the content of your posts thus far as having at least some credibility and verifiability, it's no wonder one might not want to continue discussing an issue that can go on indefinitely and yield a fruitless outcome. If you post and quote something from an external source article at least try to show the courtesy of making it verifiable. For the benefit of all. With that said though still its fugures don't stack up with the US Department of Energies estimates of land usage for the nuclear power industry more as a whole.

All the arguments seem to have been near done to death and they do not appear to change the bottom line, that Solar Thermal looks to have hugely significant potential around the world for the foreseeable future. This technology has come of age though we are still at the early phase of its commercial growth.

Originally Posted by Wobs

First of all, I'll point to the fact they are not my workings, and they are clearly "quotes", so I'm puzzled why you attribute them to me.

Secondly, the mining issue will not be significent given:
a. One mine will serve many sites
b. Said mines are used for other minerals anyway not used in the nuclear industry.

Disposal by deep burial, which is the long term norm takes up such little space as to be insignificent. Especially in terms of ground level usage.



You ask to be excused, and yet you still replied. Even more puzzling.
Like you, I saw some interesting info that I thought worth putting. If you feel disinclined to comment, you're not forced to.

[LMagic007]

Looking at land usage for nuclear power though this article might be an interesting read, and no matter how bias you might perceive it to be, and no matter how much you disagree with it, at least it's identifiable as to who provided it and there are follow up references that one can at least investigate further if they so choose.

Mining uranium takes lots of land.

Storing nuclear wastes also takes lots of land.

In 2003, The Energy Department has asked permission to reserve use of 308,600 acres of public land across rural Nevada to develop a railroad corridor to the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, located in Nye County, has a land area of 11,560,960 acres, Nye County is larger than the total acreage of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Delaware.

The Lazy Environmentalist: Eco-footprint: Nuclear Power Station v's Wind Farm

It's interesting to note the theoretical 92 miles squared example used by industry to present a conceptual scale perspective for Solar Thermals potential, in the context of nuclear energy storage. This 92 miles squared I think approximates about 5,416,960 acres of land. Less than half of the land used for the Yucca Mountain (Nevada) nuclear waste repository. Just interesting at a conceptual level, that's all. On this basis, you could effectively double the amount of land used by Solar Thermal power generation to 10,833,920 acres and still fall under the land usage of Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository alone, let alone nuclear / uranium mining, processing and generation land requirements.

Interesting. Also interestnig that Yucca Mountain region was once volcanic from a now-extinct caldera-forming supervolcano. Lets hope it stays that way.

Earthquakes In The Vicinity Of Yucca Mountain

Earthquakes In The Vicinity Of Yucca Mountain

Yucca Mountain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just interesting.

Another interesting aspect in terms of land use of the nuclear industry; Apparently the Chernobyl nuclear accident contaminated 160,000 square kilometres of land. Admittedly the risk of accident might be lower in the West, but it's interesting none the less. i.e. this is 400 km squared being about 250 miles squared. So one major nuclear accident could also erase the possible credits gained, if there were any ( and it already seems there isn't based on the Yucca Mountain example ), from nuclear energy in terms of land used in worst case scenarios, such as nuclear accidents. It seems evident that long term, land use for nuclear industry is significantly higher than we might think. If you factor in one moderate nuclear accident say every 100 years for a Western nuclear powered nation, then you can get some interesting land impact / use extrapolations.

the overall decommissioning and clean-up cost to about £56bn

BBC NEWS | Business | Nuclear clean-up 'to cost £70bn'

Sellafield attack 'could be worse than Chernobyl' | UK news | The Guardian

Again make of that what you will.

Originally Posted by Wobs

First of all, I'll point to the fact they are not my workings, and they are clearly "quotes", so I'm puzzled why you attribute them to me.

Secondly, the mining issue will not be significent given:
a. One mine will serve many sites
b. Said mines are used for other minerals anyway not used in the nuclear industry.

Disposal by deep burial, which is the long term norm takes up such little space as to be insignificent. Especially in terms of ground level usage.



You ask to be excused, and yet you still replied. Even more puzzling.
Like you, I saw some interesting info that I thought worth putting. If you feel disinclined to comment, you're not forced to.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Firstly the link you posted does not show any information you have allegedly quoted. It looks like one may need an account to access it ? thus effectively a "dead link" ?

Try it now:
The Blue Marble: Pro-Nuke? Anti-Nuke? Talk About It With the Experts

Secondly, quoting remarks from another chat forum from an unknown source ( perhaps Joe Blogs ? ), is a very dubious way of building a case one way or the other.

I made it clear where it was from. That it was opinion.

Meanwhile, let's look at the vast majority of your links......
Solar industry based saying they have a great future. As I've said many times before: propogandic in nature.

The difference is that I'm honest about nature of what I refer to, how reliable they are. Infact I like to encourage people to examine them, if they can provide critical analysis of them.

All evidence from information "out there" via web, suggests that the figures you have presented are way wrong. Yet you seem to present this info in this thread, as presumably somehow having credibility.

See comment above.

Otherwise why bother posting the information, if you did not think it had merit. A reasonable person would not knowingly present incredible information as credible and yet this information you have posted appears grossly lacking in accuracy and hence credibility.

Well, I'm plattered you think my info is incredible

You complain about lack of accuracy, and yet cannot provide any solid evidence to the contruary, and your own links are heavily biased. I openly said they were opinion. I don't know how much clearer I could have been.

Your point b ( below ) seems far from conclusive. In regard to point b. though even if the actual nuclear waste storage site might be comparatively small, the buffer zone of land that has to be secured is larger. Overriding this though, even US government seems to suggest a minimum range of 5 to 10 acres per MW for nuclear. This blows out your posted .27 acres per MW nuclear power estimate 18 to 36 fold. Other sites suggest much more land is required for nuclear per MW. i.e. some more extreme indicating up to 70 acres per MW for nuclear.

By all means post information of interest, but at least show it to have at least some substantive credibility. Your post about land usage for nuclear energy, on the face of it, appears plainly unconvincing. Yes one does wonder if it's worth the effort, sometimes. I have not seen one link or reference to any credible source from you, that indicates on balance that Solar Thermal will not have a significant future impact on our energy mix. If we are to rely on the content of your posts thus far as having at least some credibility and verifiability, it's no wonder one might not want to continue discussing an issue that can go on indefinitely and yield a fruitless outcome. If you post and quote something from an external source article at least try to show the courtesy of making it verifiable. For the benefit of all. With that said though still its fugures don't stack up with the US Department of Energies estimates of land usage for the nuclear power industry more as a whole.

Go back to previous links that I've put up. You'll find some technical documents, assuming of course you looked at them.

All the arguments seem to have been near done to death and they do not appear to change the bottom line, that Solar Thermal looks to have hugely significant potential around the world for the foreseeable future. This technology has come of age though we are still at the early phase of its commercial growth.

All the points I have raised, you haven't even looked into properly, as you choose believe the solar industry version, when they say that the technology will become a major player.

I'll repeat this just so you know: Whenever i put up someone elses opinion on this website, I do so inviting people to be critical of it. But only if they can provide reasonable evidence to prove it wrong. I'm always clear that its not my material, and that its just someone elses opinion.

Is that clear enough?

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Try it now:
The Blue Marble: Pro-Nuke? Anti-Nuke? Talk About It With the Experts


I made it clear where it was from. That it was opinion.

Meanwhile, let's look at the vast majority of your links......
Solar industry based saying they have a great future. As I've said many times before: propogandic in nature.

The difference is that I'm honest about nature of what I refer to, how reliable they are. Infact I like to encourage people to examine them, if they can provide critical analysis of them.


See comment above.


Well, I'm plattered you think my info is incredible

You complain about lack of accuracy, and yet cannot provide any solid evidence to the contruary, and your own links are heavily biased. I openly said they were opinion. I don't know how much clearer I could have been.




Go back to previous links that I've put up. You'll find some technical documents, assuming of course you looked at them.


All the points I have raised, you haven't even looked into properly, as you choose believe the solar industry version, when they say that the technology will become a major player.

I'll repeat this just so you know: Whenever i put up someone elses opinion on this website, I do so inviting people to be critical of it. But only if they can provide reasonable evidence to prove it wrong. I'm always clear that its not my material, and that its just someone elses opinion.

Is that clear enough?

The blogger's post from the below URL link you posted is incredible as in, not credible; hard to believe


re; your link;

The Blue Marble: Pro-Nuke? Anti-Nuke? Talk About It With the Experts

[


Yes thanks that's clear. That somebody appears to be just another forum poster. Glad your link is now working, but regardless, it changes nothing other than identifying the poster, whom is just another blogger. But even irrespective of all that, the information you quoted is as mentioned before, not reflective of US department of energy estimates of the acres per MW required for nuclear power generation. That information and the way it's been presented by this blogger, just cant be taken seriously, by any reasonable measure.

Frankly, mine, yours and anyone else's opinion is no less valid than the blogger you have referred to. Thus I don't really need to prove his figures to be wrong beyond expressing my view based on my reasoning already explained that his figures are way wrong. But for your piece of mind and the benefit of others, lets put this to sleep with just the following URL alone.

An entire geothermal field uses 1-8 acres per megawatt (MW) versus 5-10 acres per MW for nuclear operations and 19 acres per MW for coal power plants.

Geothermal Technologies Program: Geothermal Power Plants — Minimizing Land Use and Impact


This blogger's figures of .27 acres per MW for nuclear, fall way short of US government figures of 5 - 10 acres per MW for nuclear power. Thus this blogger is out by 18 to 36 fold on these estimates compared to US government figures and if the blogger is only talking about the nuclear power plant alone, then that misrepresents the true picture of land use. Its evident the blogger is trying to present an overall perspective and again its evident that his figures don't accurately reflect the overall perspective on land use for nuclear power generation. Thus instant loss of credibility for that post.


I have already talked about all the other information that shows from government sources that the US nuclear industry utilizes significant amounts of land for storage at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. I have shown you the numbers, that you and anyone can go and verify. It's a no brainer really, that the nuclear industry uses far more land than most of us realize. Exploration, Mining, Processing, Re-Processing, Power Generation, Storage, Waste Disposal - huge amounts of land, backed up by US government estimates and other sources suggesting far greater land use.


I have also welcomed people to examine all of the information and links I have posted, so raising the issue of honesty is a nonsense. Its all there for them to make up their own minds, as I have said several times. Thus more misleading remarks from you.

I would by far be more confident about the builders of Solar Thermal technology and any other energy technology, than the views of bloggers. That's why I point to the views of industry and less so bloggers and forum posters exercising their own views. Having a view is great, but to have credibility it needs to be backed up from external sources.


None of the information you have posted shows anything substantially negative about Solar Thermal. If you think it does please post the specifics with quotes and links. You have only presented very small degree of information that questions some aspects of Solar Thermals limitations, but generally does so in the context of its positives, which again seem to significantly shadow the negatives.


Thus again it's clear that the vast majority information out there about Solar Thermal energy is overwhelmingly positive. I've seen no significant criticism from external sources of Solar Thermal technology, not from the nuclear, coal, gas or any other renewable energy lobby. It's just does not appear to be there. If it is there, please direct us to it. It appears there are just no show stoppers for Solar Thermals significant potential contribution to the global energy mix.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Try it now:
The Blue Marble: Pro-Nuke? Anti-Nuke? Talk About It With the Experts

I made it clear where it was from. That it was opinion.

Meanwhile, let's look at the vast majority of your links......
Solar industry based saying they have a great future. As I've said many times before: propogandic in nature.

Indeed unsupported bloggers opinion. Again I draw you attention to the fact that the US government has plenty of positive information about Solar Thermal energy. This is a government that has often been seen as anti renewable energy. Still, the US government information strongly reflects the positive views in industry about Solar Thermal energy. Thus the vast majority of my links appear far more substantive than anything you have posted or indicated yourself.

As the cost of thermal storage is reduced, future parabolic trough plants could yield capacity factors greater than 70%, competing directly with future baseload combined cycle plants or coal plants.

http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/market_economic_assess.html

I have seen no information from any government source that presents an overall pessimistic view of Solar Thermal energy. The views are overwhelmingly positive about Solar Thermal energy from near all segments. You are welcome to present it if you have some.

Thus it seems quite ingenuous for you to make such claims and inferences of propaganda. Again though that I suspect is a just sign that your case lacks strength. The evidence I have presented is overwhelming and to deny its strength, beyond just barley acknowledging slight potential, one could be said to be in denial.

As I've said before, people can form their own views and make up their own minds based on the information presented, but I think it's evidently clear where the vast body of opinion lies with regard to the tremendous global potential of Solar Thermal energy.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Second best is sufficiently good enough. That's approaching one third of the USA land mass, averaging 5.5 kwh of insolation per metre squared. Thus I think it's blindingly clear where the credibility vacuum exists.

Hi LMagic. I have been away for a while so it has taken me some time to read through this long and somewhat acrimonious thread. In my opinion, you two, as mods, should be setting a better example.

Anyway, back on topic. A couple of points to consider...
I did a little simple number crunching on 10-year data of average annual insolation (from the Apricus site which cites NASA as the source).
Of all states, only 5 (including Hawaii), had average insolation of greater than 5.2kWh per day*. Total area of all five is 1,155,235 km^2. That's about 12.6% of the US land mass. Or one eighth rather than one third.
*Search function I used was =IF(Q2>5.2,1,0)
Change it to =IF(Q13>5.4,1,0) and only one state meets that criterion. And that's the tiny one.
Maybe it doesn't matter, but perhaps it shows that just a little basic analysis might sometimes show that quoted figures aren't always what they seem.

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Industry does not plan a gigawatt scale of electricity generation without knowing what it's up against.

And no doubt they also consider how well it will be subsidised?
That's not being cynical. I have been there. I know something of how the game is played.

I note also your point about 70% capacity being possible for solar thermal with storage capacity.
That puzzles me.
Solar plants get energy directly from the sun's radiation. Insolation.
I don't know of any geographical location that has more than 12 hours sunshine a day averaged over a year. So if the installed capacity of the parabolic reflectors is say, 1000MW, average input to the plant can be no more than 500kW, or 50% of rated capacity. At best.

Now, it could be that just the generation part plant is rated at only 500kW and any thermal energy above that level is stored. It's a possible explanation but, again, it maybe just shows how the figures can sometimes be just a tad biased to make a point.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Two nuclear plants were evaluated for power density. One produces 2400 MW on 650 acres, resulting in 0.27 acres / MW. Another nuclear power plant 50 miles west of Phoenix, generates 4000 MW on 1000 acres or 0.25 acres / MW.

Hinkley point B....
I did an estimate of the area from google maps.
Even running at 70% of rated capacity, it works out at about 0.21 acres/MW.
Sizewell B is more compact for its rating.
Somewhat in line with your figures and, given that land prices in UK are higher generally than in Arizona, the lower area might be expected.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Hi LMagic. I have been away for a while so it has taken me some time to read through this long and somewhat acrimonious thread. In my opinion, you two, as mods, should be setting a better example.

Anyway, back on topic. A couple of points to consider...
I did a little simple number crunching on 10-year data of average annual insolation (from the Apricus site which cites NASA as the source).
Of all states, only 5 (including Hawaii), had average insolation of greater than 5.2kWh per day*. Total area of all five is 1,155,235 km^2. That's about 12.6% of the US land mass. Or one eighth rather than one third.
*Search function I used was =IF(Q2>5.2,1,0)
Change it to =IF(Q13>5.4,1,0) and only one state meets that criterion. And that's the tiny one.

Maybe it doesn't matter, but perhaps it shows that just a little basic analysis might sometimes show that quoted figures aren't always what they seem.


And no doubt they also consider how well it will be subsidised?
That's not being cynical. I have been there. I know something of how the game is played.

I note also your point about 70% capacity being possible for solar thermal with storage capacity. That puzzles me. Solar plants get energy directly from the sun's radiation. Insolation.

I don't know of any geographical location that has more than 12 hours sunshine a day averaged over a year. So if the installed capacity of the parabolic reflectors is say, 1000MW, average input to the plant can be no more than 500kW, or 50% of rated capacity. At best.

Now, it could be that just the generation part plant is rated at only 500kW and any thermal energy above that level is stored. It's a possible explanation but, again, it maybe just shows how the figures can sometimes be just a tad biased to make a point.

Welcome to your opinion, don't entirely agree with you from my side, but that's my opinion. I'm sure the same could apply to yourself and others in other cases. Anyway all we can do is try to bring the discussion to a more reasonable tone.

Subsidisation has occurred with fossil fuels for decades in dollar terms tax breaks and delayed CO2 environmental degradation. There is an imperative for clean energy. You are just rehashing old subsidy arguments that have been discredited before, over and over. Nothing new in what you are raising about subsidies there.

Your basic analysis has revealed nothing that was not already known. Note that my point is a comment on what the US government itself has indicated. In fact most of my remarks are about reports and articles from government and industry. They are not my assessments, as I have not done the research.

Obviously we have been including thermal storage into the picture, which is what the research is based on. Again though all the information I have posted is based on sited research and industry developments that have originated from other sources, namely government, research and industry. Thus its evident you are at contention with their views. I happen to believe their views.

My point about 70% capacity factor is just reflecting government views on the potential of Solar Thermal. It's not my originated thought, its my remark about the US governments quoted view and the view I have seen an a range of research and industry articles. So if you are at odds with this view, then you are at odds with government, research and industry.

As the cost of thermal storage is reduced, future parabolic trough plants could yield capacity factors greater than 70%, competing directly with future baseload combined cycle plants or coal plants.

NREL: TroughNet - Parabolic Trough Power Plant Market, Economic Assessment and Deployment

The above quote is from US government body NREL. Other research and industry articles echo similar sentiments. My points are simply echoing these views and yes I do have more faith in these views than the views I have seen bandied about this forum. That's my prerogative. As I have said so many times though, It's up to each individual to make up their own mind.

You can throw up numbers of your own over and over and over, and one can throw up other numbers and arguments to refute them, but as you, like myself have not have done the research into the technology, its seems somewhat futile to be second guessing. One either believes in the research by reputable organisations and experts in the field, or they don't.

People can form their own judgement based on the reported research, industry news and other information freely available in the public arena, without having to continually speculate based on inaccurate assumptions about what the researchers and developers of Solar Thermal technology might be thinking. Most of the workings on this thread and in fact many threads are just personal generalised opinions and little more.

I would personally prefer to rely on information from directly from government, research and industry than the personal views reflected in posts on public forums. Its nice to discuss things from a distance, but it has to be appreciated in that context. i.e. unless you have done the research, testing and development that government, and industry have done in this specific area, don't expect your views to be taken too seriously. This same principle applies to any area of discussion on a public chat forum. So in a nutshell, yes I believe them over you, for these good reasons already clearly explained.

It's no wonder the tone of this discussion has evolved to where it is now, because all I am doing is reporting the views of what are generally considered reputable organisations. Yet somehow some people feel that somehow they know better and yet I would think that their own credibility in this area is on balance likely to be viewed as considerably less, than the organisations directly involved in the technology.

I mean it really is a no brainier to me as to who one might likely be inclined believe here. I doubt US government has a biased vested interest in Solar Thermal. If anything the US government has been a poor supporter of renewable energy. Renewable technologies have had to struggle to become accepted over decades of research and development. This technology is improving and has reached a point where it's now becoming commercially feasible. From here on it is expected to become even more competitive over time.

I have no firm reason to believe that the information reflected by government, research and industry is not genuine, either with or without my own or anyone else's figuring on the matter.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Hinkley point B....
I did an estimate of the area from google maps.
Even running at 70% of rated capacity, it works out at about 0.21 acres/MW.
Sizewell B is more compact for its rating.
Somewhat in line with your figures and, given that land prices in UK are higher generally than in Arizona, the lower area might be expected.

Again this is misleading as the post of the quote from this other blogger was talking about land use and to talk about land use to build an argument of comparing technologies, you need to consider overall land use for it to be seen as credible.

Originally Posted by Wobs

I have again also shown that US government figures indicate 5 to 10 acres per megawatt for nuclear energy. It's near meaningless to just focus on the power generation acreage alone and as already mentioned for nuclear, its been reported that considerable land is required for mining, processing, power generation, re-processing, storage and longer term waste disposal. It's just deceptive for the audience to compare the technologies on the basis of land around a power station alone, without considering all the support industries and their respective land use.

Without even considering that argument though, as stated US figures blow these estimates out of the water 18 to 36 fold based on the .27 acres per MW and anything lower than that appears way beyond a joke in overall terms of the broader land usage issues that are relevant when comparing different power generation technologies.

An entire geothermal field uses 1-8 acres per megawatt (MW) versus 5-10 acres per MW for nuclear operations and 19 acres per MW for coal power plants.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/geopower_landuse.html


This is just another classic example of misleading representation of facts, used to reflect solar energy negatively when compared to nuclear in the context of land use. US government figures disagree with you and some industry figures are even higher for nuclear land use, than the governments 5 to 10 acres per MW figures.

The Yucca Mountain ( Nevada USA ) nuclear waste repository land is of significant size, even though the actual zoned off waste dump may be comparatively small, overall it's land not available for other use. Not that this land necessarily would be used for other purposes, but this further demonstrates that the overall land consumed by the nuclear industry is far more than most of us might imagine.

Again I would prefer not to solely rely on blogger posts in forming an opinion about this aspect in terms of forming an overall view of land used by differing power generation technologies. Again people can view all information and make up their own mind.