IMHO, as someone who cares deeply about preservation of wildlife, open land, and habitats, I favor development of the safest nuclear energy we can, and research into how nuclear waste can best be dealt with. It’s the smallest footprint energy that we have, in lots of ways.
Wind - 1.2 W/m2
Solar photovoltaic - 6.7 W/m2
Natural gas well (marginal well, 60,000 CF/D)- 28 W/m2
Oil well (10 BBL/D) - 27 W/m2
Nuclear power - 56 W/m2 (South Texas Project, including the entire 19 square-mile tract upon which the project is sited)
The two reactors at the South Texas Project produce 2,700 MW and covers about 19 square miles, slightly smaller than the island of Manhattan. To match that output using wind energy, you'd need a land area nearly the size of Rhode Island.
Retired farmers in my home area are leasing acres and acres to gas and solar companies.....one farmer alone will make a quarter of a million yearly for use of his fields...
Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virgina combined as a country will be the 3rd largest producer of natural gas in the world.
most people are not going to turn down the money they can make for leasing their property..
When asked about bird deaths,Jose Andres Rehbein replied, “There are lots of chickens, so what’s your problem?”
And bats Mr Rehbein, “The more insects the better for the future food supply.”
Bloomington, Illinois to Springfield is littered with those wind turbines. No wind, absolutely no wind in the middle of summer and they’re still turning. I call BS on that.