Yep, and look at the graphs. Look at the yearly graph at the bottom, nuclear output averages 6.0 - 7.0GW, wind output averages about 2.0 - 2.5GW over a 12 month period, for about the same nameplate capacity (installed nameplate capacity: Wind 8GW; Nuclear 12GW - close enough to support the following argument).

This means we have to overbuild wind capacity by a factor of about 3 to 4 in order to match nuclear / coal / gas.

Now have a think about how much steel and concrete are required to build 1GW of wind base load capacity compared to 1GW base load nuclear. You need to build, say, 3x 640MW reactors to achieve 1GW continuous output, so 1 reactor can be offline for refuelling or maintenance at any one time, while the other two are run at 80% capacity. To achieve 1GW of base load wind you need to build 3 to 4GW nameplate capacity, and even then the wind doesn't blow all the time, so you need widely dispersed wind, plus storage because sometimes the wind doesn't blow anywhere in the UK for days on end - the currently weekly graph shows this: wind has been producing approximately 0GW output for most of the last week. Also, wind needs long new transmission lines, (large) nuclear can be a drop in replacement for existing coal plants as they are retired, or built next / close to existing transmission lines.

There are plenty of resources on the web that will help you discover the materials inputs for different generating technologies, see bravenewlcimate.com particularly [1] for example.

Regardless of what technology we choose moving forward, to achieve zero emissions by 2050 would require a war-like rollout, starting now. But wind and solar are at least a couple of magnitudes of order more materials-intensive than nuclear / coal / gas for the same base load output. And there probably aren't that many sites suitable for wind, especially ones that don't require 1000km new transmission lines.

I'm not against renewables per se, I'm just for math. The idea of 'renewable resources' appeals to me. But until the math magically changes, I don't see how wind and solar (with or without storage) is a good idea, either environmentally from the materials-input perspective, or economically from the end-users perspective. What we need to push us forward technologically is large amounts of cheap / free zero emissions -when generating- electricity.

Another strike against wind and solar is this: if either was so attractive economically then large investment funds would have flooded the market with the technology. But it isn't, which speaks directly about the ROI (Return on Investment), which is derived from materials input and running cost per dollar return. The only way it makes sense economically to build wind and solar is if the price of electricity goes up, which is ideal if you want people to freeze to death or die of heat stroke, or make your electric car uneconomical to run.

I think that UK National Grid Status webpage is the best example of wind not working as a solution to electricity supply, unless you define the problem as "how to make expensive unreliable electricity" a la Germany and Denmark [2], who have the highest wind electricity generation in Europe and the most expensive electricity in Europe [3].

I may have waffled on more than I originally intended.

1. http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/10/18/tcase4/

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_European_Unio...

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing

Edit: speeling nd grama