The harder the Alarmists try ...

[skierinvermont]

at the risk of taking my thread 100% off topic, what are your views on nuclear?

I don't know that much about nuclear besides what one might commonly read in a newspaper.. it seems unlikely to me that the world will go full-throttle nuclear given the recent crisis in Japan. The IEA halved its projected growth in nuclear power by 2030 following the incident. Germany is closing all plants by 2022, the U.S. is reviewing new plants, Italy has declared itself nuclear free, Japan has strong pressure to close plants. Personally, I'm not that opposed to it. When you examine the safety record in full it's better than that for coal.

Nuclear is pretty comparable to fossil fuel sources in cost I think. Wind actually isn't that expensive when you have cheap land to do it.

[WeatherRusty]

What if it's 0C?

That would equate to old sol loosing close to 22W/m^2 of radiant power. Or maybe CO2 is not a greenhouse gas after all. Maybe the Yellowstone super volcano will go off.

Other than those rather unlikely eventualities and maybe others, I can see no way temps fail to rise at least to the Planck Response (1.2C/doubling of CO2 or equivalent scaled). Also there could not be any further release of methane from any source, the carbon cycle would have to remain unchanged and net feedback would have to zero.

[WeatherRusty]

That's skier for you. He's the B team. WeatherRusty is the A team.

Skier is the more well rounded one. I'm more of a specialist.

[The_Global_Warmer]

go down a couple posts and I linked you to a paper on the subject. To me, AMO and NAO are linked in signal generally, and NAO does have an influence on wind patterns during the summer melt season re Fram Strait. AMO also has linkage to SST's in the North Atlantic. Some suggest the AMO is further linked to the Thermohaline circulation (NA current) that may have a ~70 cycle. Again, all interesting stuff and just now being studied in depth.. Sometimes you rush science too much Friv. 30 years ago when I was in college, we didn't have computers or the internet, and 8 track tapes were just out of style. Satellites didn't sit over the Arctic and everything we knew it seemed was anecdotal in nature. So, answers are coming. Have patience. In 20-30 years, you'll know things that you never imagined.

I asked you how the AMO is the driving force in the arctic sea ice decline.

We have satelitte data back to 1966. So let put this theory to rest that everything was anecdotal. We know the sea ice extent by satelitte with a less than 1 million sqkm error margin since 1966. This tells us that the summer ice extent from 1966 to 1975 was greater than the perceived sat era in 1979 with multi-scanning becoming available which didn't start the satellite era. It enhanced it. The only thing that does is make the data before not reliable enough for measurements against the newer data for precise sea ice mins.

In fact we know we have over estimated the arctic sea ice extent and area before 1987. And then before 2002. Which means the sea ice from 1979-2002 was over estimated.

And soon the ice now will end up over estimated until the sat's are precise enough to make this error small enough to be negligible. This is why we downconvert grid res for long term data. right now the long term data is at 25km grid res. We know that grid res has a error of 500,000km2+ on extent vs the AMSR-E and SSMI 85 and 89ghz data which has been validated by the Nasa Team, ASI, and Enhanced Bootstrap.

This means even in the Negative AMO phase the ice was melting out more rapidly.

when the new AMSR2 comes online the historic data set with Bremen, NSIDC, and Jaxa will be ensemble and converted to 12.5 and 6.25km2 grids with the latest and greatest algorithms.

We already know the period of 1972-1987 will be converted know based on year to year conversions on an average of 500,000km2 on extent. this will show that sea ice didn't fall as rapidly now and was already going down faster then. Which supports Co2 forcing and warmer artic SST feedback from 1998 to 2011. While yes the NAO has had a massive role in accelerating the ice loss in dumping out the MYI. this has nothing to do with the AMO and the AMO being able to fix the arctic.

I didn't post earlier but we know the Sea ice min from 1966 till 1972 was between 8.0-8.5 mil in 1966 to 1972(7.5-8.0 mil)

http://www.apecs.is/virtual-poster-session/marine/280-renner2007b

We know the sea ice thickness was already declining back into the 60s and into the mid to late 50s from submarines and Russian buoys, stations and ships. which is verified from infrared satellite data.

So are you going go to say that data was useless or off or wrong? How could the ice decrease so rapidly during a negative AMO.

[WeatherRusty]

Hahah. It's unbelievable too. Once they start speaking in terms of economics, whatever knowledge they had regarding the climate becomes null and void. Absolutely no understanding of our current economic situation, nor the cost effectiveness of solar power. I just hope none of them are running businesses where others depend on them.

Which country will be better poised to export technological advancements going into the future? The one with it's feet stuck in the mud or the ones embracing new opportunities? The U.S. is tragically falling behind in science and technology. Did I just recently hear we are well back in the pack of nations in math and science education? We had better get out of the dark ages we are self inflicting upon ourselves or all we have to export is....war.

[WeatherRusty]

Many on AP have socialist leanings, so that is to be expected. Mainstream America knows differently. He can't hide from his policies and actions. But, enough with the politics here. This is climate science, and we need to discuss how you guys can do a better job of selling what you're shoveling.

Unfortunately, if you don't accept the validity of the science then no amount of shoveling will be sufficient. Either the science convinces or it doesn't. Just make sure you really understand it before you form an opinion.

[WeatherRusty]

See any problems here? Anyhow, I guess you aren't a capitalist after all.

Back on topic though, what are your thoughts on Nuclear? I believe Sunny asked you as well...

Nuclear is extraordinarily expensive. It is not a for profit business and requires huge government subsidy. Beyond that, the world supply of fissionable Uranium is extremely limited and thus is not a long term solution. Fusion is the future but is maybe 40-50 years away. Then there is the safety concern and the threat of terrorism.

[skierinvermont]

Nuclear is extraordinarily expensive. It is not a for profit business and requires huge government subsidy. Beyond that, the world supply of fissionable Uranium is extremely limited and thus is not a long term solution. Fusion is the future but is maybe 40-50 years away. Then there is the safety concern and the threat of terrorism.

This MIT report I found does a good job explaining things. You are right that nuclear is more expensive than coal and gas when we take into account the cost of waste disposal, decommissioning, security etc. But when we take into account the estimate cost of CO2 emissions, nuclear does appear less expensive than coal or gas. For this reason, the MIT study concluded that nuclear power is a cost-effective way to mitigate AGW and that uranium supplies are sufficient for this course of action.

summary: http://web.mit.edu/n...wer-summary.pdf

CH5 on economics: http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuclearpower-ch4-9.pdf

[The_Global_Warmer]

We could spend 1 billion dollars per year on building cheap solar technology that can store some energy but take over for the regular power whenever the panel is taking in solar energy.

Then use a tax credit program for people to purchase this for an affordable enough price based on income once the technology is affordable enough to use.

Solar Panel

The 8 amps/250/600volts, watts is not exactly a powerhouse and seems to be able to run a HD tv and Xbox. If I am missing something please let me know.

But that i just one and building one twice the size with 4 times that output can supplement and curve American power dependence on polluting materials by quite a bit if implemented nation wide.

we would also need to build one that has the capacity for upgrades.

Or we could go further and use say Carbon NanoTubes to build a conductive "wire" into space that connects with a giant Satellite that can have solar panels absorb energy and sent it to earth and have it spread out quickly.

Or look into a way to tap into that 260 day a year lightening storm and possible take in a that kind of power to distribute it into the system without interruption.

Humans have shown the capacity and ability in a desperate situation to move technology decades, centuries, and sometimes millennia forward.

So when folks say we can't do it because of this or that. They should say we can't do it because it might put the current powers at be out of business. I can only image how cut off some of those people are from the rest of humanity. but I can't understand how cut off some of the posters in these forums are from the rest of humanity.

[Sunny and Warm]

I don't know that much about nuclear besides what one might commonly read in a newspaper.. it seems unlikely to me that the world will go full-throttle nuclear given the recent crisis in Japan. The IEA halved its projected growth in nuclear power by 2030 following the incident. Germany is closing all plants by 2022, the U.S. is reviewing new plants, Italy has declared itself nuclear free, Japan has strong pressure to close plants. Personally, I'm not that opposed to it. When you examine the safety record in full it's better than that for coal.

Nuclear is pretty comparable to fossil fuel sources in cost I think. Wind actually isn't that expensive when you have cheap land to do it.

I believe nuclear should have a future, and govts are ceding to unreasonable public fears at times. Who really could have forecasted an earthquake/tsunami/flooding backup generators/nuclear tragedy at a 40 year old technology plant happening?? To me, it's the most effective means to get us to a cleaner, cheaper energy future. All we need now are politicians with backbones.

I'm probably the least in favor of wind. I consider it a stain on the environment due to visual issues, grease escape from the turbines, and wildlife loss (birds).

[valkhorn]

I believe nuclear should have a future, and govts are ceding to unreasonable public fears at times. Who really could have forecasted an earthquake/tsunami/flooding backup generators/nuclear tragedy at a 40 year old technology plant happening?? To me, it's the most effective means to get us to a cleaner, cheaper energy future. All we need now are politicians with backbones.

I'm probably the least in favor of wind. I consider it a stain on the environment due to visual issues, grease escape from the turbines, and wildlife loss (birds).

Well Japan could have done better. They placed the reactor on the coastline and Japan is known for Tsunamis and seismic activity. A 9.0 earthquake, although rare, isn't out of the question for anyone along the ring of fire.

Then again, it's very difficult to build anything to withstand that magnitude of Earthquake.

As far as energy goes, I would stick with fusion, but it will be a while before it is viable - and solar/nuclear could help but not without big government subsidies. I actually looked into getting solar for my house to get it somewhat off the grid, and for the price I'd have to pay ($20-30,000) it's just not worth it. I'd have to pay $200 a month in electricity for 100 months before it paid off, and I don't pay that much in electricity now. By then, the inverter would have to be replaced anyway, and it doesn't help at night or on a very cloudy day.

It is true that we could fill 100 sq. miles or so and get plenty of solar energy for the country, but electricity won't make it that far through the wires. I think our best bet with solar is to improve nanotechnology so that the PV cells are just more efficient.

[Vergent]

It is true that we could fill 100 sq. miles or so and get plenty of solar energy for the country, but electricity won't make it that far through the wires.

Please stop making things up. Transmission has not been a significant limitation for thirty years.

http://www.geni.org/...ems/index.shtml

"For example, transmission systems can be set-up over a distance of as much as 7000 km in d.c and 3000-4000 km in a.c. such that, by offering an acceptable reliability level for the receiving system concerned, present costs small enough (from 5 to 20 mills/kwh) as to make advantageous the exploitation of those sources, when compared to generation at 30 - 35 mills/kWh located in the vicinity of load centers."

In California, we buy a lot of electricity from Canada.

http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/washington/bilat_can/energy-energie.aspx?lang=eng&view=d

[valkhorn]

Please stop making things up. Transmission has not been a significant limitation for thirty years.

http://www.geni.org/...ems/index.shtml

"For example, transmission systems can be set-up over a distance of as much as 7000 km in d.c and 3000-4000 km in a.c. such that, by offering an acceptable reliability level for the receiving system concerned, present costs small enough (from 5 to 20 mills/kwh) as to make advantageous the exploitation of those sources, when compared to generation at 30 - 35 mills/kWh located in the vicinity of load centers."

That was almost as rude as strongbad.

What you could have said:

Transmission lines are no longer a problem, here's why.

Instead you chose one of the most demeaning ways possible to get your point across. So you said I'm making things (plural) up. What else do you take issue with? Can you possibly be civil about it?

I stand corrected about transmission lines if you are correct - but there are still problems with load balancing.

[Sunny and Warm]

What you could have said:

Instead you chose one of the most demeaning ways possible to get your point across. So you said I'm making things (plural) up. What else do you take issue with? Can you possibly be civil about it?

Agree. There was a chance for civility in that post, but it was electrocuted along with the message.

[Strongbad]

Agree. There was a chance for civility in that post, but it was electrocuted along with the message.

No pun intended?

Considering the title of this thread is not completely civil, I guess the lack of it at times is making more sense.

[skierinvermont]

Please stop making things up. Transmission has not been a significant limitation for thirty years.

http://www.geni.org/...ems/index.shtml

"For example, transmission systems can be set-up over a distance of as much as 7000 km in d.c and 3000-4000 km in a.c. such that, by offering an acceptable reliability level for the receiving system concerned, present costs small enough (from 5 to 20 mills/kwh) as to make advantageous the exploitation of those sources, when compared to generation at 30 - 35 mills/kWh located in the vicinity of load centers."

In California, we buy a lot of electricity from Canada.

http://www.canadaint...lang=eng&view=d

Transmission losses are still significant, and would be much more significant if we generated all our electricity in the plains and then transmitted it 1000s of mils to the coasts where the demand is, which is the hypothetical that was originally posted.

Current transmission losses in the U.S. are about 7%, despite the fact that most power doesn't travel very far. 7% is still quite significant given the amount of power that is produced.

When Californians buy power from Canada, the power is not actually coming from Canada. All power in the country is pooled. CT can buy power from power plants in TX and TX can buy power from power plants in CT. But when the power is pooled in the transmission network, it is going to take the path of least resistance (the shortest). Which means CTs physical power is coming from CT and perhaps some of the nearby states, even though they paid for power to be produced in TX.

[bobbutts]

good ****ing grief.

Watts, a known provocateur, posted an out of context section from a poll which seems to show that Americans don't care about global warming.

if anyone in this thread knows ONE thing about polling, it has to be that questions in that format are always TOPICAL and have a context. my God, look at it again in the first post: all of a sudden the Gulf oil spill fell off the radar. why is that do you think? why do you think the economy and jobs are suddenly high priority issues for Americans in general, open-ended polling?

either the OP is entirely ignorant about polling or he is 100% troll.

So you're saying most Americans are well educated on climate change and consider it a top issue that they're willing base voting decisions on?

Further, you'd consider alarmist propaganda to be an effective tactic long-term for achieving effective solutions?

Regardless of whether the poll, blog author, or OP is bunk, there is something to take away.

[WeatherRusty]

So you're saying most Americans are well educated on climate change and consider it a top issue that they're willing base voting decisions on?

Further, you'd consider alarmist propaganda to be an effective tactic long-term for achieving effective solutions?

Regardless of whether the poll, blog author, or OP is bunk, there is something to take away.

I hear this term or something similar often, but I don't really understand what it represents. Can someone specify just what qualifies as "alarmist propaganda"?

[skierinvermont]

I hear this term or something similar often, but I don't really understand what it represents. Can someone specify just what qualifies as "alarmist propaganda"?

alarmist propaganda (n.)

1. anything which directly or implicitly provides evidence that humans may influence the climate in a harmful manner

2. anything and everything published in a scientific journal. Scientists are not to be trusted.

3. anything written by James Hansen or by an associate of James Hansen or by somebody that has worked with, shaken hands with, seen, used the same urinal as or otherwise come in contact with James Hansen

4. anything objectionable in content

synonyms: "me no likey!" and "**** you!"

[The_Global_Warmer]

I post about the real situation in the arctic and weather above 60N. No one that calls me an alarmist has replied. no one apparently wants to talk about the amo who calls me an alarmist.

Only when we stop talking real time weather and climate and historic real time weather and climate is when the ones calling me an alarmist want to talk anymore. It's quite sad.

[WeatherRusty]

alarmist propaganda (n.)

1. anything which directly or implicitly provides evidence that humans may influence the climate in a harmful manner

2. anything and everything published in a scientific journal. Scientists are not to be trusted.

3. anything written by James Hansen or by an associate of James Hansen or by somebody that has worked with, shaken hands with, seen, used the same urinal as or otherwise come in contact with James Hansen

4. anything objectionable in content

synonyms: "me no likey!" and "**** you!"

So alarmist propaganda can be considered to be just about anything related to the scientific finding that Earth has been and will continue to warm due largely to human activities. This warming will bring about changes in the climate experienced at most locations on Earth, forcing mankind and many other species of life to rapidly adapt to or migrate from changing climate if at all possible. Adaptation will be made difficult in many cases because of the relative rapid pace of what is expected to be a global warming extending to temperates well above any experienced on a global scale for at least the past 15 million years.

The last time something similar occurred was 56 million years ago during an event known as the PETM. However, modern global warming will occur at a much more rapid and demanding pace than that event.

SEE PETM

[tacoman25]

I hear this term or something similar often, but I don't really understand what it represents. Can someone specify just what qualifies as "alarmist propaganda"?

The opposite of the "disinformation machine"?

[Sunny and Warm]

I hear this term or something similar often, but I don't really understand what it represents. Can someone specify just what qualifies as "alarmist propaganda"?

1. arctic will be free of ice in 5 years ... (wrong answer)
2. Himalayas glaciers will melt in 35 years (mistake AGAIN)
3. Greenland ice fields will slide into the ocean (still waiting)
4. Maldives will be under water soon (hint, it's sinking)
5. Polar bears are going extinct soon (no, not really)
6. Amphibians cannot survive rapid AGW (not the cause)
7. Hurricanes will get bigger and badder in the future (still waiting)
8. Tornadoes will become more numerous and stronger (again, NOT)
9. Kilimanjaro ice/snow will melt completely due to AGW (no it's not, and it's not related to AGW)
10. Sea levels will rise by X meters this century (how's that working out lately)
11. All heat waves are AGW related
12. All snow and cold is AGW related
13. All droughts are AGW related
14. All heavy rain events are AGW related

Do I need to go further?? Isn't it embarrassing to have these statement as your talking points when none have come true, and/or are reversing direction??

... but the science is settled, so you have that going for you at least ...

[skierinvermont]

1. arctic will be free of ice in 5 years ... (wrong answer)
2. Himalayas glaciers will melt in 35 years (mistake AGAIN)
3. Greenland ice fields will slide into the ocean (still waiting)
4. Maldives will be under water soon (hint, it's sinking)
5. Polar bears are going extinct soon (no, not really)
6. Amphibians cannot survive rapid AGW (not the cause)
7. Hurricanes will get bigger and badder in the future (still waiting)
8. Tornadoes will become more numerous and stronger (again, NOT)
9. Kilimanjaro ice/snow will melt completely due to AGW (no it's not, and it's not related to AGW)
10. Sea levels will rise by X meters this century (how's that working out lately)
11. All heat waves are AGW related
12. All snow and cold is AGW related
13. All droughts are AGW related
14. All heavy rain events are AGW related

Do I need to go further?? Isn't it embarrassing to have these statement as your talking points when none have come true, and/or are reversing direction??

... but the science is settled, so you have that going for you at least ...

1. ehh maybe I agree

2. typo != propaganda

3. Greenlands ice sheets ARE sliding into the ocean, greenland is rapidly losing ice mass, and greenland ice loss has contributed significantly to sea level rise this decade. Greenland has historically melted entirely at temperatures only 2C warmer than present, a threshold which is likely to be crossed within a century. It takes several hundred years to melt, but it will melt.

4. The maldives average only 1.4m above sea level. While regional sea level can fluctuate due to natural variability, global sea level has risen .2m already, and likely will rise .5-1.5m this century, putting much of the Maldives under water.

5. I don't think anybody has said polar bears are going extinct soon.

6. I don't know anything about amphibeans in particular, but many species will go extinct if the earth warms 2C+ in the next century. Many species have gone extinct in past warming and cooling events. Species with narrow niches and small geographic ranges cannot adapt or relocate quickly enough.

7. I think it is pretty well publicized that we don't know how hurricanes will change in the future. The general consensus is marginal decrease in frequency and increase in intensity.. but the effect is small even after 3C of warming and the warming has only just begun.

8. It's widely acknowledged that we don't have a good handle of how tornadoes will change, but the evidence leans in my opinion towards slightly higher frequencies. But the effect even after 3C of warming would be fairly small and too small to detect with how little warming we have had thus far.

9. I have read that much of the decline of snow/ice on Kilimanjaro has been due to land use changes and natural variability. If the earth warms enough however, it will lose its remaining snow and ice.

10. See level has risen .2m over the last century and is currently rising at 3cm/decade. Given the acceleration in warming that is likely, and given that we are approaching temperatures at which Greenland will melt, sea level rise is likely to accelerate. From what I have read, .5-1.5m is a reasonable estimate by 2100.

11-14. All weather is affected by AGW in one way or another. Nobody has said that heat waves, cold, snow, droughts, floods etc. would not occur without AGW. What is said is that the dice are becoming increasingly loaded towards heat waves, droughts, floods. I don't really think there's much good evidence heavy snows will increase on the east coast, but they are likely to increase in certain areas.

[WeatherRusty]

1. arctic will be free of ice in 5 years ... (wrong answer)
2. Himalayas glaciers will melt in 35 years (mistake AGAIN)
3. Greenland ice fields will slide into the ocean (still waiting)
4. Maldives will be under water soon (hint, it's sinking)
5. Polar bears are going extinct soon (no, not really)
6. Amphibians cannot survive rapid AGW (not the cause)
7. Hurricanes will get bigger and badder in the future (still waiting)
8. Tornadoes will become more numerous and stronger (again, NOT)
9. Kilimanjaro ice/snow will melt completely due to AGW (no it's not, and it's not related to AGW)
10. Sea levels will rise by X meters this century (how's that working out lately)
11. All heat waves are AGW related
12. All snow and cold is AGW related
13. All droughts are AGW related
14. All heavy rain events are AGW related

Do I need to go further?? Isn't it embarrassing to have these statement as your talking points when none have come true, and/or are reversing direction??

... but the science is settled, so you have that going for you at least ...

Most of those things will occur as temps continue to warm. If you expect things to change rediculously fast before the temperature has risen further you will not have your expectations met.

OH, and I told you guys what is meant by "the science is settled", and not many of the things you mention are part of that strictly defined consensus.

The Earth is warming and human activities are currently the greatest contributor to that warming.

[The_Global_Warmer]

So instead of real time weather talk we are back to hyperbole and conjecture to differ from the reality of climate change.

Just sad.

[WeatherRusty]

So instead of real time weather talk we are back to hyperbole and conjecture to differ from the reality of climate change.

Just sad.

Friv,

You do a great job monitoring the sea ice. You have followers. Most people don't contribute, they just pass by reading what interests them. You know how this works, it's just a contentious subject and we masochists enjoy banging heads with each other. Don't take it so seriously. Learn the subject for your own benefit.

[Sunny and Warm]

Rusty,

Here is the complete and growing list. Enjoy ...

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

[PhillipS]

I believe nuclear should have a future, and govts are ceding to unreasonable public fears at times. Who really could have forecasted an earthquake/tsunami/flooding backup generators/nuclear tragedy at a 40 year old technology plant happening?? To me, it's the most effective means to get us to a cleaner, cheaper energy future. All we need now are politicians with backbones.

I'm probably the least in favor of wind. I consider it a stain on the environment due to visual issues, grease escape from the turbines, and wildlife loss (birds).

Well, the Free Market in America has turned its back on nuclear since the 1970s. According to the DOE, the last reactor built was the River Bend plant in Louisiana, which began construction in March of 1977. You'd be laughed off Wall Street if you tried to find investors for a nuclear startup today. So when you say "All we need now are politicians with backbones" are we to understand that you're advocating massive government intervention to override the decision of the Free Market? What do you feel strong-backboned politicians should do to get nuclear plants going? Reach into the taxpayers' pockets for subsidies or loan guarantees? Run roughshod over the legal system to prevent inconvenient lawsuits? Perhaps quashing local land use and planning efforts would open up sites for nuclear plants.

Please help us understand what it is you are advocating.

And I have some questions about wind turbine, too. Becaue you don't like their look, would you prohibit landowners from leasing their personal property to wind energy companies? That your 'right' to a turbine-free view trumps their property rights? What about of-shore wind farms - if you can't see them are you still bothered by just knowing that they're out there?

Your claim about wind turbines leaking grease is a total strawman. Under normal operations they don't leak at all, and if a mechanical failure causes a leak it is small and stays at the turbine site.

But you do have a point about birds being hit by wind turbines. The good news is that modern, larger turbines have a lower avian mortalty rate. Here's one study comparing old and new wind turbine technology.

[Sunny and Warm]

Well, the Free Market in America has turned its back on nuclear since the 1970s. According to the DOE, the last reactor built was the River Bend plant in Louisiana, which began construction in March of 1977. You'd be laughed off Wall Street if you tried to find investors for a nuclear startup today. So when you say "All we need now are politicians with backbones" are we to understand that you're advocating massive government intervention to override the decision of the Free Market? What do you feel strong-backboned politicians should do to get nuclear plants going? Reach into the taxpayers' pockets for subsidies or loan guarantees? Run roughshod over the legal system to prevent inconvenient lawsuits? Perhaps quashing local land use and planning efforts would open up sites for nuclear plants.

Please help us understand what it is you are advocating.

And I have some questions about wind turbine, too. Becaue you don't like their look, would you prohibit landowners from leasing their personal property to wind energy companies? That your 'right' to a turbine-free view trumps their property rights? What about of-shore wind farms - if you can't see them are you still bothered by just knowing that they're out there?

Your claim about wind turbines leaking grease is a total strawman. Under normal operations they don't leak at all, and if a mechanical failure causes a leak it is small and stays at the turbine site.

But you do have a point about birds being hit by wind turbines. The good news is that modern, larger turbines have a lower avian mortalty rate. Here's one study comparing old and new wind turbine technology.

Philip,

I don't have a great deal of time today, so I will be brief. You seem to not have a good understanding about the nuclear industry and what it takes to build a plant. It is highly regulated, thus it is not a free market industry. It is difficult to get capital to flow toward nuclear energy when it can take 15-20 years to get a permit, if you can even get one. While I agree that regulation is required since public risk CAN be great, I also feel that many unreasonable rules are in place to prevent nuclear plants from being built unduly. Overall, a better lot of govt officials would be helpful in turning away these specious fear-caused regulations. I hope that answers your question.

As for wind energy, allow me to answer them in turn:

1. I don't like their looks, and since they are inefficient forms of energy harvesting, I would prefer they not stain the horizon. They are just about the least efficient energy source, and I've yet to see independent verification that the payback is better than anything else out there, and under a 20 year life cycle cost payback.
2. I defy you to drive by ANY large scale wind farm in CA and not find grease leaking from the casing on a MAJORITY of the windmills. Same probably goes for any other farm. Why the EPA hasn't fined the sh!t out of these operators is beyond me. I personally know a guy that repairs those things and he claims they're dirty as hell, and the grease is all over the ground.
3. Lower avian mortality is not none, but I am happy to hear that it is lower at least.

All-in-all, not a good technology to spend good money on. I prefer solar farms or nuclear for "clean" energy.