MASTER BLASTER rules UNDERTOWN!

There are at least some situations where this could be valid medically. However, they would generally involve cases of organ failure requiring some form of dialysis like kidney failure or liver failure so the point would be to remove blood products from the patient containing the toxins that the liver or kidneys would normally remove from the blood and replacing them with clean versions. In that case, you're basically using other human beings as a dialysis machine, just in installments. Of course, for it to be useful, you would need to have a lot of donors who donate very frequently and you would need to do a very large number of exchanges. Otherwise, you could use a single donor in something like a traditional dialysis setting and pump blood out of the patient and the donor, run them through separate filtration and centrifuge processes, producing different sets of blood components, then put some of them, like red and white blood cells, back into the person they originally came from after mixing with other products, like plasma coming from the other person. That way you could use the kidney and/or liver from another human being as a replacement for a non-functional organ in another human being. In some ways, I expect it would work better than traditional dialysis machines in some ways because natural organs are self-regulating and require less guesswork and estimation than dialysis machines to achieve homeostasis and also because they remove more things and do it better. Of course, they still could not replace functions like producing bile (since it would not travel to the patient through blood), or regulating blood cell production as the kidneys do since the kidneys regulate that based on how many red blood cells there are so hormone production would be based on the high levels in the donor's blood rather than the low levels in the patient. Of course, I suppose there still would be more red cell generating hormones in the donor's blood anyway, so that should cross over and stimulate red cell production a little in the patient. Also, you could reduce the red blood cells returned to the donor during the session to match the patient and, over a long enough session, the donor kidneys would produce more hormones... In other ways of course, replacing it would probably represent an unacceptable risk of immune reactions in both patient and donor, even with separating the blood into components and only transferring some of them.

So, there is a situation where you could use another human (preferably a young, healthy one) as essentially a piece of medical equipment, but it would probably mostly be better just to use the actual piece of technology if available since the pros come with some potentially serious cons. As far as rejuvenation goes... There have been studies in mice that do show an effect from blood from younger mice into older mice. Of course, though I don't recall all the specifics, chances are that those mice were very closely genetically related (as in the product of multiple generations of mice born to cousin-siblings) if not outright clones. Plus, of course, they are mice which, among other things, have very short lifespans as well as not necessarily having analogues in humans to their biological reactions. Ultimately, there may be health benefits (along with some risks), but any effect is likely small. There is definitely no vampiric fountain of youth here.

That reminds of something... I can't remember what it was actually from, but it was something sci-fi themed, maybe an online comic. In any case it has one character from an advanced alien civilization who has a device that employs switches and buttons and another character who is almost angry that the advanced alien technology just uses interface elements like that instead of voice control, neural interfaces, isn't embedded internally, etc. The alien replies that their civilization is technologically hundreds of times older and has gone through all of that stuff but, in the end, buttons and so forth simply work. Of course, later, the tactile controls on that same device are not actually available, and the alien just talks to it instead to operate it. It turns out that it does actually have voice control and probably other interface options as well.
Anyway, to me that seems like maybe the right way to go. Make other possibilities options, but don't just jump ahead and say everything must be this new fad interface now instead of the old way and that the old world must burn to make way for the new! That, unfortunately, seems to be the way this society driven by fads and marketing seems to operate.

Charity through local organizations, religious or otherwise is a problematic proposition. There are a number of issues, but most of them involve inconsistent coverage. For example, the city near you may have excellent support from a Christian rescue mission. However, even if they don't exclude anyone, or have rules or other factors that lead to some people falling through the cracks and not getting help, can you say that every locality has an organization like that available? Consider for example, the problem of structural unemployment. Let's say there is a factory in town that employs a third of the people in town. It goes out of business or just moves and suddenly, not only do all of those employees not have jobs, but many of the businesses that need the financial support of those employees to earn enough to stay in business are suddenly out of luck. Suddenly, you have a lot of needy people. The local religious charity, which is used to supporting maybe half a percent of the town's population, suddenly has to worry about tens of percentage points of the population. At the same time, local donations to the religious organization drop through the floor.

Basically, though there are a lot of aspects of charity that can work well at the local level (obviously, local volunteers are needed in many cases), there tends to be much better coverage with a widespread system that uses society-wide resources to deal with trouble spots. Kind of like how it works out better if businesses rely on the fire department rather than each business hiring one firefighter part time for two hours three days a week.

In other words, risk-pooling, like the insurance industry.

Aren't you making the assumption that the AC you are replying to does not donate or volunteer for charity though? It's not like they said either way, or asked. They just implied that the religious charities are using the charity to proselytize. Whether that is true or not depends, of course. Some religious charities definitely do, requiring prayer and other religious devotions or even joining their congregation, going through religious ceremonies like baptism, etc. in order to receive charity. Others just give out charity to anyone and everyone without discriminating. The argument from some is of course that spiritual salvation is far more important than even staying alive (not really mathematically valid reasoning of course since if you keep someone who does not believe in your religion alive longer when they would die otherwise, even if they refuse to convert, etc. that gives them more time to choose to convert to your religion, so, statistically it's the better choice even when conversion is your goal). Anyway, it's a spectrum and Christians (as well as other religions) do fairly frequently have at least some coercive intent when doing charity. It's a spectrum.

Well, I have to say for Gattaca, it was very, very, very heavily stylized in a way that it's pretty certain the world will never look like that. I mean, a number of futuristic movies have used a retro 40's/50's style like Gattaca, but it took it more than a couple of steps further with astronauts launching wearing business suits, etc. The reason was that it was a stylized exercise in examining obsession with status and appearance: financial success, genetics, athleticism, good looks, etc.

The "good" should be just like that, in quotes. I frequently hear the argument from some religious people that, if it were not for rules from a higher power, everyone would be killing, stealing, raping, etc. Whenever I hear that from someone, I have to wonder if, in their minds, they are just holding themselves up as an exception, or if they genuinely would be killing, stealing, raping, etc. if they did not have those rules. Various religious scholars have grappled with that, of course. Some, like Paul and Jesus, depending on interpretation, saying that the ten commandments were actually built into the hearts of humans by God. Conveniently explaining away the fact that heathens still seemed to have some of the same basic moral rules, but sort of invalidating the point of Moses spending all that time chiseling on a mountain.

Anyway, the point there is that the "good" people referenced are "good" according to the moral beliefs of whichever mode of their particular religious sect they operate under. In other words, if god commands that you shall not suffer a witch to live, then "good" people can burn their neighbors at the stake for having a black cat and a wart and not only remain "good", but actually be extra "good" unlike those morally suspect people, who said that maybe they shouldn't burn a harmless old lady alive because some people claimed to have had magical dreams where the accused performed magic (I've always found it really weird how much of the "evidence" in those cases came from sources that seem a heck of a lot like witchcraft from my perspective).

So, from my point of view anyway, that quote was about structural evil, where social norms can make people do things that are pretty evil from a rational perspective, because they are caught up in a distorting moral framework. Of course, I disagree with the quote that only religion can do that. Although I might buy at least a bit into the argument that if some framework does that, maybe you can call it a religion even if it is technically secular. For example, other posters have brought up massacres committed under ostensibly communist regimes. It is worth noting however that there is incontrovertible evidence (as in, direct statements by the architects) that the powers that be in those regimes were fully aware of the ability of religion to redefine moral values and explicitly sought to emulate religion as a form of social control.

Geographical distribution of wind, an interconnected grid, and storage can be used to overcome intermittency. Storage can be hydro where practical (with definitely a decent amount of capacity in Germany) and battery.

No, I am not. Have you even bothered to read the paper you linked to? Don't just link to things and expect me to read them for you. For starters, let's look at the measures that paper uses. It employs LUIE which is hectares/TWh/year... So, in other words, hectares/TJ*hour/second/year or, in other words hectares/TJ*3600 seconds/second/31,556,926 seconds. I mean, seriously, just cancel all the unnecessary terms and numbers and you get hectares/114,079.55 Watts or, in other words 1 hectare per/114.07955 MW. I mean, seriously, it's just reinventing the concept of units of area/per Watt with pointless extra terms and a pointless multiplier. I mean, I have come to accept that the power sector measures quantity by taking Watts, which are just a rate of 1 Joule per second, then multiplying by an hour, where the time terms are really in seconds, just that an hour is 3600 seconds, so they should cancel to Joules and a multiplier. I complain about it, but I accept that those units are there. But then adding yet another time term, this time years, which is also just seconds and a multiplier!? I have a hard time accepting the intelligence and rationality of anyone who blithely use such a term. I will use it if I have to, but only under protest. In any case, in this system, they give nuclear a score of 7.1 (using the median figure), meaning that, 1 GWe actual would be the average production of a 62.24 Hectare nuclear plant, or 0.6224 K. In other words, adjusting for a 93% capacity factor, it would be 0.5788 square kilometers for a 1 GWe nameplate nuclear plant. That is obviously a load of crap since it is so far off commonly reported figures and real-world observations.

As far as wind goes, their figure is 130. So that would be 11.40 square km for actual production of 1 GWe from wind. With a 34% capacity factor, that means a nameplate 1 GWe farm would be 3.88 square km. If we look at the 11.4 square km figure, with 5 MWe nameplate wind towers (producing 1.7 MWe actual), it would take 588 to produce 1 GWe actual. So, that would be 19,388 square meters per wind tower. In other words 1.94 hectares. Or, in other words, converted to a circle, a diameter of 157 meters. The blades of a 5 MW nameplate wind turbine are only about 130 meters. That is obviously wrong. Put in other terms, it's about 5 American football fields. Clearly wrong. It also ignores the fact that, for a wind turbine, you can use the land pretty much right up to the steel of the tower itself for farming and other uses.

Looking at the paper and how they got their figures, for nuclear they claim to have used land use for uranium mining in their figures. Considering that their area per GW comes out as far lower than standard claims that do not even take mining into consideration and that the mining for a nuclear plant over its lifespan takes up considerably more space than the plant itself, that reduces the credibility of their methodology and/or data quite a lot. They are also pretty vague about certain aspects of the data collection and they don't really show much actual detail about how they came up with their numbers in the paper itself. Also, just reading that section, there's some language that makes them seem like apologists for nuclear power that you don't see in the other power sources. For Wind, among other things they mention including the area of access roads and a perimeter. This by itself is invalidating. In dual use scenarios, such as farming, access is necessary even if there is no wind farm there, so that is pretty invalidating by itself. They also mention that "For spacing area, we traced the perimeter of the entire wind farm, including all the space in between turbines.". I could basically replicate all of their work to draw more conclusions and form a very detailed rebuttal, but that would be a huge waste of time. It's clear just from these details that their study is basically invalid.

Of course, I did look into the background and affiliations of the authors a bit (though, once again, not going to spend weeks on it) and there are lots of red flags regarding the authors impartiality. I would say that I tried to outline the tree of affiliated organizations and sponsors, but it is less of a tree and more of a connected graph. The Breakthrough Institute pops up various times, there are nuclear engineering organizations, etc. Notably, Bill Gates, the subject of TFA comes up as being one entity behind this. Basically, there is a ton of evidence that this is a paper written to favor a predetermined conclusion.

If you want to argue that, you can make points from the paper and go back to the primary data, but don't just spit out numbers from the paper. Their statistics seem to be just fine, but the methods they used to generate the numbers to plug into the statistics are seriously suspect.

My conclusion is that my analysis of the land area actually consumed by wind towers is rough, but correct. Also that the area consumed by wind farms is less than the area consumed by nuclear plant in terms of actual output.

The wikipedia entry for Palo Verde reads like ad copy: "It is a critical asset to the Southwest...", etc. Aside from that, it is not a good example, because it uses water for cooling. The water is treated sewerage mostly from Phoenix, which gets its water by unsustainably draining the Colorado, Salt, and Verde rivers. In other words, it uses a "massive source of fresh water" (the water could be used for crops instead). So no, this is actually an example of a power plant using a large fresh water source. Also, it generates 3.64 GW actual, and takes up 16.5 square km, so it is 4.54 km per GW actual in terms of land usage. So this is not a good example of low land usage or of the ability of nuclear plants to operate without large water sources. It uses 65 million gallons of water per day.

Once again, nonsense. You are using a cherry-picked definition of "anywhere" with your own chosen granularity. I can tell because I know you will backtrack and claim that you meant "country" specifically if I pointed out individual homes or towns, etc. that get all of their power from renewables. The simple fact is that, as time goes on, the only way you will be able to support your position will be through increasing levels of contortion of the facts. It seems like, if you want to make a geographic argument, you will just end up gerrymandering your definition and pointing to regions with arbitrary boundaries that have not decarbonized their electricity generation to your arbitrary standards yet. I am not, of course, defending how long it is taking nations to decarbonize, but your claims that they have "failed" because they are en route to the goal but not there yet reek of desperation.

I am sure that electricitymaps is a worthwhile project, but it is not up to me to join their project because they don't have up to date information. I have enough other projects I am already involved in. As for a citation, here:

-- World nuclear Association: Nuclear Power in France
In case you need me to. That's 17.7 TWh from natural gas equating to 3%, then biofuels/waste, oil, and coal adding up to 21.2, which is about another 3%. 3% plus 3% adds up to 6%. Burned fuels produce around 450 grams or higher of CO2 per kwh, so 6% of that is at least 27 grams of CO2 per kWh, as I wrote.

Once again, can you at least make an attempt to show that you understand why there might be problems with using "a rolling estimate of yearly output? One that includes last month days after the month ended"? I mean, aside from questions about the reliability of the information on the site, you have to see the problem with that, right?

Well, I can't seem to find it. Perhaps you can help me out? All I can find is that the data is aggregated from hourly results and that their methodology uses "raw production data from public, free, and official sources. They include official government and transmission system operators' data", but it doesn't actually list the sources, just notes that it runs it through its own algorithm which does not seem to be detailed under methodology.

You really like to repeat yourself don't you? The point is, with such radical changes, apparently just from shifting the rolling window by one month, it should be clear that your numbers are neither precise, nor accurate. You might want to state a degree of certainty along with these numbers. Note that I wouldn't be so strict if you weren't trying to, metaphorically speaking, cut things finely with a rolling pin.

There is definitely an approximate order of magnitude difference between the CO2 per kWh of France and Germany. That is not in doubt. The variability of the numbers you insist on, however, is obviously wide enough that your apparent confidence in the numbers appears foolish. For example, when asked, you cited a threshold of 50 g per kWh of CO2, but we can't even say for certain that France is actually within that threshold given your own methodology.

Oops. Errata. I did in fact make an error in that post on the vaporization of the rivers. I plugged in the wrong multiplier. Looks like I was off by a factor of about 6.87X in the total. So much less of the Mississippi would have been vaporized with the 500 GWe, though it would have been completely vaporized with the full primary power production. It would not have been enough to completely vaporize all of those rivers, they would have just boiled with a relatively small fraction vaporizing. I mean, it would still be enough to pretty much wipe out all the life except for extremophiles, so the point about thermal pollution being a real problem still stands, but I did make an error for which I apologize.

I don't need a better idea. They already exist. I think you've forgotten in all these posts that the whole point of this was noting that Flamanville is smaller than the average which is a little over 3 sq km per GW for nuclear power plants. Nuclear plants using ocean water can use various techniques that more or less fit into your list. For example, they can evaporate ocean water in a cooling tower, so that it gets absorbed mostly by a phase change and then goes into the atmosphere For oceanside plants though, a common method is to have a large number of cooling ponds or canals taking up a lot of ground area. Some of the heat goes into the atmosphere, some goes into the ground, etc. The point is that the water cools down first, then is returned to the ocean. Once through systems like Flamanville save on space and on cost, but they are also recognized as sources of pollution. Plenty of studies have confirmed that dumping massive amounts of hot water into the ocean is indeed harmful.

As for your other examples like into the air. That is done through two main methods. One is pure air cooling, which takes a lot of infrastructure and extra land and cost, but is really the only realistic option without a massive water source. Another uses those flowing water sources you mentioned and cooling tower where water is evaporated (pluses: doesn't heat the water source like once-through and uses less water, minus: the water is removed from the fresh water supply, which denies it to those downstream. The once-through method with flowing water sources of course adds heat pollution. To get an idea of how much, consider some of the rivers in the US by flow rate:
Mississippi (number one by flow rate): About 16.8 million liters per second. So that means that if a 1 GWe electric plant uses the whole river for cooling and the heat is distributed evenly (which does not happen, of course, they take a tiny fraction and it gets released in a hot spot), then the river is heated by about 0.179 C. Not massive, but not nothing.
Skipping the St. Lawrence because of complicated water rights issues since it is mostly Canadian.
Ohio (number three): 8 million liters per second. So a 1 GWe plant raises the whole river by 0.376 C.
Niagara (number seven): 5.8 million liters per second. So, 1 GWe plant raises the whole river by 0.517 C
Missouri (number ten): 2.44 million liters per second. S0, 1GWe plant raises the whole river by 1.23 C
Of course, that's just a 1 GWe plant. If all of the approximately 500 GWe of Electricity the US uses were generated by nuclear plants and cooled by these rivers, (assuming a 15 C starting point), the Mississippi river would be raised to 100 C and 90.5% of it would be totally vaporized to steam. Any other single US river would be totally vaporized.
If, instead of just electricity, but all approximately 3,500 GWe of US primary power the US uses were generated by nuclear plants and cooled by rivers, the top 38 rivers in the US (with the last one being the Colorado river, with about a 27th of the flow rate of the Mississippi oh, and including the full flow rate of the St. Lawrence, ignoring Canada's rights), representing probably most of the flowing water in the US (hard to find exact figures on and even the numbers I am using here probably double count a lot since some of these rivers flow into the others), would be completely vaporized. Just to note, for the above, I am taking enthalpy of vaporization into consideration.

So, the entire point is that Flamanville is not really a good example of the typical size of a nuclear plant because it gets to cheat on size by dumping heat pollution into the English channel. Plants like that get by with a grandfather exception, but new plants can't get away with that. As the analysis shows, the heat dumped by these plants is not insignificant.

You realize that's a "the solution to pollution is dilution" argument, right? The problem is not the heating of the entire Atlantic ocean. Do you now that the house I live in is built on the Earth. That's a pretty huge thermal mass. If my house catches fire, it's not going to be noticeable in how it affects the heat of planet Earth. I might have some reasons to be concerned about the local effects, however. So, if you're not sure about the analogy there, the problem is locally where the hot water, which rises, heats the top layer of water.

Also, I should note that the _electrical_ output of Flamaville is 1.3 GW, but that translates to a _thermal_ output of about 4 GW. That's enough to raise the temperature of nearly a million liters of water by 1 degree C every second. Or say an area of 1 square km and one meter deep (once again, hot water tends to rise to the top) by 3.6 degrees C every hour. It is not trivial for the area around the outlet and, combined with all of those phosphate and iron containing pollution you mentioned, certainly risks creating giant, toxic algal blooms that kill off mass numbers of local sea life. Basically, it is clear that this nuclear station only exists because it is grandfathered. It's not like the other pollution you mentioned is OK, either, but there are good reasons not to allow this sort of thing

Note: I wrote note last to basically say there isn't much point in reading the below. It's just more or less me thinking with my fingers about options for a heat differential storage systems and what heat storage medium would be best. Basically the conclusion is that, yeah, it's water. Without some extreme need to fit it into a particularly cramped space, a suitable floor to ceiling tank should fit in most spaces.

Water has excellent heat capacity both by mass and volume, but there is the narrow heat range without a special vessel, at least when storing heat, so I was thinking about a material that can hold more heat simply by changing its temperature a lot more. You can store more heat per degree Kelvin in a cubic meter of water than a cubic meter of sand, but the sand won't explode its container if you heat it up over 100 C. Of course, there the limits for increasing the temperature are going to be based on how well insulated you can make it, and also your energy budget for heat. Obviously, you want to get as much heat as you can through heat pump techniques (possibly chained) but, at a certain point of diminishing returns, the efficiency will drop to the point where you will need to switch to resistive heating (though that should not be a problem if you have surplus electricity during the day, and that is where smart grid features should come into play, so your appliances know when to draw extra power from the grid to avoid waste). Overall though, while there is the potential to store more heat in a lower volume with a material other than water if you can simply make use of higher temperatures. Storing cold with lower temperatures obviously has more limitations though. You can't cool the material more once you hit the limit of heat pumping the way you can with simple resistive heating. With water, you can also exploit the latent heat of fusion of water when it phase changes (but you do need a container that can withstand its expansion, maybe you can keep it in some sort of slush form). You could have a water tank for when you're handling cold and a tank of other material for heat, but that negates the space savings. So, it does get a bit tricky storing both heat and cold to find a better material than water.

On the other hand, perhaps you can simply store heat for both heating and for cooling. Even in hot weather, you could exploit the differential with the air outside to drive a secondary process that would also pump heat out of the interior.

I may be overthinking trying to save space though. Taking a look at just water:

Obviously, you ideally just have enough space for a big enough water tank. If we imagine a need for a max of 50K BTUs/hour, 20 hours per day that you want to run without drawing electricity from the grid, that's 1 million BTUs or a bit over a gigaJoule or, more appropriately 252,164 kiloCalories. If we are raising from 20 C to let's say right at 100 C, that's 80 kiloCalories per kg (liter) of water, so we would need about 3,160 liters (rounding up slightly) or 3.16 cubic meters. Assuming a 2 meter tall tank, that means about a 1.6 square meter floor area, so about 1.27 meters on a side. That's not too bad actually. Obviously you would want some good insulation around the tank. Plus you would need to be able to get it through doorways, so you would want either a composite tank made of a number of tall, thin tanks, which you assemble together and surround with insulation after, or possibly the tank is custom built onsite through other methods then insulated. Something like that could fit in the kind of spaces where lots of homes currently keep their hot water heaters. With enough insulation, it could even go outside.

For cooling, you could go with the same technique. If we assume the same 50K BTUs/hour, then we need the same approx 252,164 kiloCalories. Cool the water from 20 C to 0, and your 3160 liter tank stores 63,200 kiloCalories of heat differential. To go beyond that, one approach is antifreeze, but you run into the problem that the more antifreeze you add, the less heat the solution can hold per degree Kelvin. You can't get to the point where you can get the rest of the cold you need with that volume of water while it is still a liquid. If you freeze it, you get 80 kiloCalories per kg. So freezing the water gives you the rest that you need to get the 252K+ kiloCalories and then some (just that 80 matches the 252K+ Kilocalories. Obviously, the problem there is that expansion of the water in the tank. You only need to freeze 75% of the water in the tank to reach your goal though. If the tank has enough air at the top and a pressure release valve and you freeze the water in some pattern, like having a central core of ice that does not reach the sides, you can prevent the ice from causing freeze-thaw damage to the tank. Otherwise if you can keep it as some sort of slush, etc. Also, you could combine methods so the water does have antifreeze in it, but not enough to reduce the heat capacity by too much. Enough so that you can get it below freezing, but still freeze a portion of it and reach the storage goal. Also, have to consider that a core of ice is going to be buoyant. How buoyant might vary a bit with a hybrid approach with antifreeze, but it would be based on about 9% of the mass of ice. So it would be approximately 213 kilos (about 2100 Newtons of force). That could be handled with extra space at the top of the tank, but holding down 213 kilos structurally should not be much of a challenge, just a consideration.

So, it looks like, without some really major space limitation, the extra complication of not just using water would not be worth it. Also, as far as the actual heat storage amount, obviously that might vary. However, except in cases of extremely drafty, poorly insulated houses, it should be suitable for most installations.

Not sure if they bother with masks, but they definitely have agents grabbing people in the streets. I mean, they have mobile execution vans. The masked agents in the US seem to be part of a plan to normalize that sort of thing, certainly.

Strict gun control makes significant numbers of school shootings unlikely and contributes to the low officially recorded murder rate. Looking at the stats now, they report a 99.9% case closure rate for murders which is terrifying because it is virtually impossible for it to be true. Best case is that they are just official lies, but I worry that it is because the authorities have a mandate to "solve" every case no matter what. Meaning that, if there is a murder (or even something that just looks like a murder) someone is arrested, tried, and executed for it in short order regardless of whether they did it or not.

Well, yeah, except for the little fact that warm water is exactly the thing that turns all of those things you mentioned into total disasters. For example, giant, toxic algal blooms that kill everything in the water.

I have no inability whatsoever to admit that the number 19 is less than the number 283. The moronic part is where you fail to recognize that I am calling your actual claims about what the numbers really are and your interpretation of them into question, not whether one number is bigger than another.

I am obviously considering that metric. The CO2 per kWh for both nuclear and wind and solar are well within our target range. They are effectively equivalent on that metric.

I consider capacity factor in all of my calculations. I typically use 93% for that figure for nuclear (though I should note that, for France, it is only about 66.7%), 34% of nameplate for onshore wind in the US. For Solar, I often do more involved research, but for parity, I normally use 20% of nameplate. So, those are always considered in my calculations, comparisons, and analyses.

As for land usage, it's pretty clear that wind power uses less than nuclear. I get an upper size estimate of around 426 square meters for the concrete pad of a wind turbine (and this is ignoring the fact that you can actually use the land on top of the concrete pad too) and to match the 930 MW for a 1 GWe power plant (1 GW multiplied by 93% capacity factor) I get 547 5 MW nameplate wind turbines producing 1.7 MW (with 34% capacity factor), even though the pad size I mentioned would probably actually fit a larger turbine. So that would be 233,022 square meters, or about a quarter of a square kilometer for a 1 GW wind farm. A nuclear plant has the next lowest footprint. Most numbers given are about 3 square km per GW for nuclear, though someone else pointed out Flamanville with about a 1 GW to 1 square km ratio, though it manages that compactness by sitting right on the English channel and directly pulling in Channel water and then pumping hot water directly back into the channel. In any case, more than Wind. Solar does take more land, clearly. However, nuclear generally requires waterfront property which is normally premium property. Solar can operate in desert areas that people tend to think of as wastelands. Now, it is possibly to use nuclear without a massive source of cooling water, but that generally means a lot more land use and more expense.

As far as material usage goes, wind power is generally acknowledged as having the most material usage out of our candidates. Most of that is steel and concrete. Of course, nuclear plants use massive amounts of those too. As far as the concrete goes, most numbers seem to put it at about 4X the concrete use of nuclear power plants almost entirely because of the need for a massive pad to anchor the tower. The thing is, there are plenty of ways to reduce that usage, it is just that installers mostly have not bothered yet. It's like retaining walls, there's the well-engineered way where you use relatively little reinforced concrete in a braced, roughly L-shaped structure with footings designed to anchor against slippage and use the weight of the soil it is retaining to actually hold it in place (while also backfilling with gravel and a geotextile layer and providing drainage to prevent issues with hydrostatic pressure), or you can just rely on mass and make a really big wall. Updated techniques for the pads for wind turbines will reduce concrete usage 75% or more, putting wind on parity with nuclear for concrete. For steel usage, there's rebar in the concrete, and the better engineered designs I mentioned will reduce that as well, by similar proportions, then there's the steel in the tower itself, from what I can find, the required mass of steel goes down somewhat the larger the wind tower. For the larger ones, it looks like you're looking at 4-5 times the steel of a comparable nuclear plant. Of course, there is a caveat to this. The math when comparing to a nuclear plant is often done in terms of its expected lifetime vs other sources of power. The thing is, giant steel towers on massive concrete bases made with modern engineering techniques have realistic lifespans of hundreds of years if maintained. Various steel structures around the world attest to that. So that really means that wind towers have life expectancy potentially 4-5 times longer than a nuclear plant. Sure, the blades and components in the nacelle need to be replaced from time to time, but that's just maintenance, you can maybe make an argument about it when the turbines and generators in a nuclear plant don't need maintenance and periodic replacement. In any case, even ignoring that, the extra steel is not such a big deal. It is recyclable after its long, long lifetime and it is also not scarce but plentiful. For the direct comparison with nuclear, both the wind farm and the nuclear plant have steel usage close enough to be in the same order of magnitude and the environmental cost of the steel for either is negligible compared to the amount they save by not being fossil fuels. Nuclear wins on this, but not by much. It is a consideration, but not one that weighs much versus the other considerations. I will also note that I ignored the more exotic and difficult materials. Doing so favors nuclear power since, even if they are only a small fraction of overall materials, their nature tends to outweigh that. For example, a 1 GWe nuclear plant will use over a thousand tons of nuclear fuel over its lifetime, costing something like $3 billion+ (hard to say over its lifetime since the price is pretty variable, but tends to outpace inflation over time). To compare to steel, the cost of new steel is about $820 per ton, so that $3 billion plus could buy $3.658 million tons of steel, dozens of times the actual amount of steel in either a 1 GW nuclear plant or an equivalent producing wind farm.

Solar is trickier. I can find sources saying that solar uses more materials than a nuclear plant, and sources saying less. Your fellow nuclear fanatic, MacMann, is fond of posting sources that compare material usage. However, his sources have a material breakdown for solar farms that show them using about five times more "cement" than "concrete" among other weird issues. It seems impossible to make sense of that. For nuclear and solar it seems like they are in the same ballpark with the material use once again representing far, far less waste than fossil fuels for ever of them. All I can really say there is that there is not enough difference either way for it to outweigh the other factors. It is certainly something to consider working on reducing, and I certainly think that things like concrete pads vs. ground anchors, etc. should be considered in the actual physical installation for solar.

All of the other factors we have touched on favor renewables over nuclear from my perspective. Except, as already mentioned, in niche uses.

It does not result in failure because there are not any problems with the renewables that we don't already know how to solve. I don't object to nuclear where it makes sense (the previously mentioned niches), but it does not make sense for standard power generation on the grid. The mix can include nuclear (especially still running older plants in good condition where they can be inexpensively and safely maintained), but it should not be a major component.

That does not account for the other four and a half percent or so that comes from burning things. An amount which, once again, should put France near or at the goal you previously mentioned for grams CO2 per kWh.

You're using a rolling estimate of yearly output? One that includes last month days after the month ended!!! Look, I should not have to explain to you the serious problems with that. I will if you need me to, but you should be able to explain yourself the multiple problems with that approach.

OK, this site you're using, it looks like they are well intentioned, but it is hard to tell how rigorous they are. Can you cite the actual primary sources the data you are using here is coming from. I was not able to immediately find it on their site.

So, you realize that's an 11.3% increase for Germany, but a 37% increase for France, right? Such a huge swing, apparently from dropping one month off the start of the data, and adding one month on at the end indicates a serious reliability problem. I am not doubting that the reality is a roughly one order of magnitude difference between France's CO2 production and that of Germany, at least in the electrical sector, but the actual precision of the numbers you present is in serious doubt.