Commentary

The exhibit authored by the MIT Energy Club and the MIT Sloan Energy and Environment Club provides the following answer:

Coal

Using coal would require 635,000 tonnes of coal or 6,350 rail cars.  That many rail cars makes a train 63 miles long.  The coal would produce 1,576,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide.

Wind

Using wind would require 74 square miles of land with 240 wind turbines.  0 tonnes of carbon dioxide would be produced.

Natural Gas

112 billion gallons of natural gas would be needed to do the job and 749,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide would be produced.

Biomass

64 square miles of forest would be needed so that 1,649,000 tonnes of wood could be harvested.  64 square miles is 10 times the size of Cambridge.  160,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide would be produced.

Solar

Solar would require 2.2 square miles of land covered with solar panels.  0 tonnes of carbon dioxide would be produced.

Nuclear

530 pounds of uranium would be needed and 55,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide would be produced.

Yes, cost and minor issues like radioactive waste are not compared but it is a thought provoking nonetheless.  Coal comes off looking absurd and certainly the most environmentally damaging from a climate change standpoint.  Biomass also does not look particularly attractive with its large land requirement.  Wind and solar look good with their zero carbon dioxide footprint but interestingly wind requires 74 square miles to solar's 2.2 square miles.  Combined with the fact that solar is more easily sited on a roof than wind is makes solar look much better.

Nuclear is the dark horse option.  Long (still?) the third rail of energy options, Nuclear looks pretty good when the 530 pounds of uranium are compared to the 2.2 square miles of solar panels or 74 square miles of wind turbines.  Maybe someone at MIT will figure out a way of reprocessing the nuclear waste into something more manageable.