Replies

The world will produce the same amount of wind next year and the year after until the Lord returns. All of our current electrical needs could be provided by capturing a tiny percent of what blows across this country. Study the supply of fissionable material and you'll be surprised at how little there is.

It's still about efficiency, not fuel supply.

First, there is easily enough known fissionable material available to provide safe, efficient nuclear power for hundreds of years, so your point is moot.

Second, wind turbines still COST more to manufacture, install and maintain than they EVER produce in power. Counting taxpayer subsidies, they are a net LOSER.

Theoretically, you're right, capturing the power in the wind would solve all our power problems. In reality, though, we're just not very good at the capturing part.

Public opinion counts and people don't like nukes but they love windpower.

Public opinion cannot change the laws of physics. No matter HOW much the public loves wind power, it's still an expensive, inefficient, land-hungry way to make electricity.

They love it for the same reason so many love Barack Obama: The facts are ignored in favor of hopes and dreams.

Second, wind turbines still COST more to manufacture, install and maintain than they EVER produce in power. Counting taxpayer subsidies, they are a net LOSER.

I had to stop reading right here. I don't think you are speaking from facts but from emotion. The fact is that a 1.5 mw turbine costs $2,500,000 and produces 100,000 mwhr in 20 years. That electricity has a retail value of $13,000,000. Sure in some places a turbine of that size will produce more or less and the cost will be more or less. 2 cents/kwhr for 10 years is from the PTC which represents about a million dollars in subsidy but the numbers I'm quoting are current and your statement is clearly false.