Replies

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.

Why take Googles word for it when I read the literature at the wind farm to see that wind power simply isn't a viable solution. Huge tracts of really expensive machinery with a peak production that's a fraction of what even a small gas turbine plant could produce are not the answer, when the technology gets to the point that it can at least keep up with yesterday's technology it's worth discussing going into production with. Right now wind power should still be relegated to the experimental stage. It's not that it won't ever be a good idea, it's that it's not a good idea now. Much like solar power, someday it'll be a good idea, but not now.

I'm not against wind power because it's green, nuclear power would be green if the liberals weren't generically against everything with the word "nuclear", I'm against it because the technology simply isn't there to make it a viable alternative energy source. Read your own link and see the painfully obvious data, wind power isn't there yet and is at least 2 leaps in technology from being there. That's not an anti-green position, that's an INFORMED position.

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.

In other words a either a 1 mw wind turbine costs the same as a 1 gw nuke plant or 1 billion watts worth of wind turbines produces 1/1000th as much power as a 1 billion watt nuke. This is the charge you have made and neither is correct.