J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes:

[lots of really good stuff - basically, nuclear is a lot better than
it's made out to be - snipped]

WE don't need to use any wind. Its an appalingly inefficient way to
generate usable power. It has no real justification beyond seeming to
the naive, to be a green solution to a real problem. In reality its no
solution at all, but it gets the greenies of peoples backs whilst they
work on real solutions.

I think that's a _bit_ harsh. Sure, in terms of setup energy costs (e.
g. making the concrete), as well as running efficiencies, it's not
great; however, since it is in effect free,

It isn't. It takes a lot more man hours to manage and keep the bloody
things doing anything useful than it does to mine and refine Uranium.

I don't think it should be
dismissed. (Especially if the return-on-investment time can be reduced,
as suggested in some article about a new - Chinese, of course - design
someone posted a link to here has any validity; I think ROI time is the
big killer of wind power at the moment.)

ROI is critically dependent on the interest rate you borrow the cash at.

For both nuclear and wind, with wind being slightly less so, since it
has far higher ongoing costs than nuclear.