Well I was talking off the cuff based on what I saw driving by... if you consider the plants built since the report I was pretty close! Point being there is rapid expansion of wind power right now.

I'm not sure what you mean by "capacity factor" and your power point only had one slide???

Are you saying windmills only turn 30.9% of max output on average?
But that's really not at issue, since we add up what they do produce, not what they could produce. I guess it depends on what you are looking at. If you are looking at wind capacity, or wind production.

What's the point here? Is nuclear more powerful and reliable? Of course... there is no debate there. And I do think nuclear is a green way to make power. I was once told 100 pounds of uranium makes the same power as 20,000,000 pounds of coal. I may be off by a power of 10, but that's a close guess.

16 pounds of Plutonium can generate 100 watts for 100 years ( or 1000 watts for 10 years) in a thermocouple device. ( per NASA ) This is used in deep space probes where sunlight is too weak for solar cells.

Maybe expensive! But efficient. ( what is the cost of Plutonium these days? )

I'm not opposed to nuclear power, after all other "green" and renewable sources are maxed out first. Will we ever run out of wind? I mean really... if the wind blows north to south today, will the windmills in Minnesota leave less wind for the windmills in Iowa? And in turn, will there be even less wind for the mills in Missouri, "downstream" so to speak? Will extensive windmills play any part in "The Butterfly Effect"?

I have all the questions. I do not have all the answers.
-John