[biblewonk]

Let's see we have an energy source that costs almost as much to build as a nuclear power plant, costs almost as much to maintain as a nuclear power plant, takes up much more space than a nuclear power plant (like 10 to 100 times the space), and produces an insignificant portion of the electricity (like 1/100 to 1/1000 the electricity). Sounds like a silly energy source to me.

You have some series errors in this statement but the biggest error of all is in bold. The space is not "taken up". The farmland in Iowa with windmills still produces corn. Can you accept this and modify your statement?

The next problem is that you have mixed two different complaints making neither one correct. Either individual windmills cost the same as nukes and produce less power or a billion watts worth of windmills produce 1/100th to 1000th as much power. Neither of which is true. Not only not true but seriesly totally way off the mark.

[discostu]

The only windfarms I've seen (which would be the ones inbetween Tucson and San Fransisco) have nothing but windfarm (and the freeway), the land is taken up. Maybe in other places that's not the case, though given the way agribusiness is working I'm betting land shared with a windfarm isn't nearly as easy to farm as clear land.

Whole windfarms (7000 windmills give or take depending on the specific farm) cost around as much as a nuke plant and produce very little in wattage compared to what a single nuke plant produces (which you could fit a lot of in the space of one windfarm).