[biblewonk]

Worse, wind farms produce only a fraction of the energy of a conventional power plant but require hundreds of times the acreage. For instance, two of the biggest wind "farms" in Europe have 159 turbines and cover thousands of acres between them. But together they take a year to produce less than four days' output from a single 2,000-megawatt conventional power station — which takes up 100 times fewer acres. And in the U.S., a proposed wind farm off the coast of Massachusetts would produce only 450 megawatts of power but require 130 towers and more than 24 square miles of ocean.

This is another big deception used by anti windmill people. Windfarms to not "take up" the land as described here. The implication in this wording is that the land must be stripped down to level of ugliness required for a nuke. Not true. If 100 square miles of Iowa farm land were used to site windmills, there would be less than a 10 percent loss in crop production, each farmer would be compensated for the land leased and billions of kwhr's would be produced, forever. Each year the price of wind produced power goes down, and each year we use more of our unrenewable fossil fuels causing their price to go up.

[newgeezer]

There again, the devout naysayers can only envision the classic (and antiquated) California wind farm, where the "previously lovely" Altamont Pass is apparently covered with "ugly" windmills (probably because that's the only experience most of them have ever had, seeing one picture on the Web).

[Dan Evans]

Each year the price of wind produced power goes down, and each year we use more of our unrenewable fossil fuels causing their price to go up.

Funny thing about fossil fuels is that they are getting slightly cheaper. In the last 25 years the price of home heating fuel has dropped slightly, the price of a barrel of crude oil has dropped about half since the 1981 peak.