https://x.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1873752918353936578
Do you like math? Do you like making climate activists cry? If so, then this article is for you. 
They promote utility-scale solar photovoltaics (PV) and wind as “green” energy technologies because they emit less carbon dioxide over their life cycle. Emissions are something all “greenies” love. But when you point out to them how land-intensive their “green” energy technology is, they squirm, trying to prove their strong opposition to nuclear fission—a near-infinite, carbon-free, energy-dense source of electricity— —and try to justify your position.
Let's run the numbers, shall we?
𝐍𝐔𝐂𝐋𝐄𝐀𝐑𝐅𝐈𝐒𝐒𝐈𝐎𝐍 
A standard nuclear reactor is rated at 1,000 megawatts (MW). This means that each power plant has an average installation capacity of 1,000 MW. The average 1,000-megawatt nuclear facility occupies slightly more than 1 square mile (640 acres) of land.
To calculate how many homes a single 1,000 MW power plant can power, we can start with the following equation:
𝑬 = 𝑷 × 𝒕, where,
• 𝑬 = Energy (MWh)
• 𝑷 = Power (MW)
• 𝒕 = time (hour, hr)
If we assume that a 1,000 MW nuclear reactor operates at full power for an entire calendar year, approximately 8.76 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity will be produced annually.
𝑬 = 1,000 MW × 24 hours (1 day) × 365 [days] (1 year) = 8.76 million MWh/year (8.76 TWh/year)
However, reactors do run at full power 100% of the time as they need to be taken offline for refueling or maintenance. Therefore, we must consider capacity factors in our calculations.
Nuclear power has the highest capacity factor of all sources of electricity generation in the United States, reaching 0.93 by 2023, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
https://eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_04_08_b.html
This value means that in 2023 U.S. nuclear reactors will operate at full power about 93% of the time.
Therefore, to calculate how much electricity each power plant produces in a year, we must multiply the previously calculated value of 8.76 TWh by a capacity factor of 0.93. If we do this we get,
𝑬 = (8.76 TWh/year) × 0.93 ≈ 8.15 TWh/year
Now, to determine how many homes to power, we have to divide 𝑬 by the average electricity usage of U.S. homeowners in a year. According to the EIA, this number is approximately 10,500 kilowatt hours (KWh) or 1.05 × 10⁻⁵ TWh.
https://eia.gov/energyexplained/use-of-energy/electricity-use-in-homes.php
Therefore, dividing 8.15 TWh/year by 1.05 × 10⁻⁵ TWh/year gives approximately 776,190 households.
So, according to U.S. data, a 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plant covering one square mile, operating at a capacity factor of 0.93, could power more than 775,000 homes a year.
Now it's very energy dense, isn't it? Why would climate activists oppose this?
Now let’s compare nuclear power to the Greens’ preferred technologies of solar and wind.
𝐒𝐎𝐋𝐀𝐑𝐏𝐕
Utility-scale solar photovoltaic arrays require an installation capacity of at least 1 MW.
According to the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), an A1 MW solar photovoltaic array requires approximately 5-7 acres of land.
https://seia.org/initiatives/land-use-solar-development
And, according to the EIA, solar had a capacity factor of 0.232 in the United States last year, by far the 𝒍𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒔𝒕 of all energy sources. This means that due to changes in weather conditions and sky coverage, solar photovoltaic arrays will only operate at full power 23.2% of the year in 2023.
By using the same calculations as above, a 1,000-MW solar photovoltaic array would occupy approximately 5,000-7,000 acres of land (an average of approximately 6,000 acres) while powering 193,523 homes, approximately 582,667 fewer homes than nuclear power.
Oops, that doesn’t sound very effective. 
The single utility-scale wind turbines occupy approximately 80 acres of land and are rated at 2.5 MW each.
A 1,000-MW onshore wind farm requires approximately 400 2.5-MW turbines covering approximately 32,000 acres of land.
And, according to the EIA, the 2023 wind capacity factor is 0.332, meaning U.S. utility-scale wind farms were operating at full capacity 33.2% of the time last year.
If we use the same methodology as before, we find that a 1,000 MW wind farm can power approximately 277,143 homes for a year. Therefore, a 1,000 MW wind farm will power 499,047 fewer homes than a 1,000 MW nuclear facility, but occupy more than 50 times the land area.
Now that doesn't quite work either, does it?
𝐒𝐔𝐌𝐌𝐀𝐑𝐈𝐙𝐈𝐍𝐆𝐈𝐓𝐀𝐋𝐋𝐔𝐏
To power the same number of homes as a 1,000 MW nuclear power plant would require:
• 𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐏𝐕: Approximately 4,000 MW of installation capacity (equivalent to four nuclear facilities) and 24,000 acres of land (approximately 37.5 times the land area of a nuclear power plant).
• For 𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐝: approximately 2,800 MW of installation capacity (equivalent to 2.8 nuclear facilities) and 89,600 acres of land (approximately 140 times the land area of a nuclear power plant).
However, I should caution you that these estimates are actually conservative. Why? Because they do take into account the land area required for battery storage due to their intermittency during cloudy conditions, low wind speeds and/or at night.
Based on land requirements alone, if climate activists were serious environmentalists they would support the deployment of more nuclear power. Some of them do, but most I've spoken to don't and find terrible excuses to support massive solar photovoltaic and onshore wind farm construction.
Nuclear power represents continued economic growth and a clean energy future.
But many climate activists don't want the economy to continue growing. They want to abolish capitalism and subvert Western culture.
https://twitter.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1873752918353936578
Relevant
Learn more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to have the latest posts delivered to your email.
