Wind or Nuclear? - Ray Harvey - Mises Institute This is a good point even if it is semantics. even wind power is not "renewable" Once the wind has gone past a turbine, the energy is transferred to the turbine. that particular chunk of wind is gone not reused. here is the rub for environmentalists. Do you want more and more acreage used for wind and solar until as far as the eye can see not one square inch of open land is left or do you want the same energy producing, greenhouse gas free energy produced at smaller unobtrusive plants that can be built almost entirely underground? It seem counter intuitive to me to ignore the one energy resource that we own. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal and yet we demonize its use rather than investing in ways to make coal cleaner, we have decided to make energy from coal unaffordable. that last bit is part of the problem with wind and solar. we have to wait for the diluted energy to come to us. Here in New England, June has been one of the cloudiest on record in the last 50 years. Solar dependence would have left a lot of us in the dark. we do not live in a good wind corridor here so ant power produced by wind would have to be transported here at great expense. Or we could build small reactors to supply all the regional power we could ever want. subsidizing only adds to our costs. Not only do we pay higher prices for less efficient energy sources but our tax burden increases to subsidize these power sources. Again if reducing transmission distances of power is less expensive, why do we insist on putting all our energy needs on power that has to be transmitted over vast distances because it can only be produced in the most remote locations? Is it worth the trillions of dollars it will cost? And once again we see the hypocrisy of Pickens and his ilk. it's fine for him to have tax payer foot the bill for his projects as long as he get the profit and doesn't have to look at a windmill out of his living room window. I still don't understand this especially when you factor in the true amount of nuclear waste produced by a reactor and not the inflated quantity the alarmists say is produced. More bang for the buck but we still would rather spend our money on the most inefficient energy rather than the most efficient. I've posted articles that have said this very same thing about so called nuclear waste. once again our government doesn't allow the recycling or reuse of nuclear materials so rather than benefiting from nuclear, we would rather pursue less efficient but more expensive power sources. And I'll add that we'll all be flat out broke because we are pursuing the flat out wrong course on energy.