Wind Power a great argument for Nuclear Energy

Here is another great argument for Nuclear Energy. Apparently, one of the alternatives is not yet ready for prime-time. Wind Power has many environmentalists all up in arms because of the down sides. I'm listing these 'downsides' to wind power in the reverse order that they were described to me. So I'm guessing that there may be an implied priority, who knows.

• Well, one big negative impact is the visual blight left on what is arguably the finest of many natural landscapes in our state--the high ridges of Western Pennsylvania. To me this ought to be the highest priority 'negative', yet it was listed last.
• Then there is the and untold injury and death to birds, bats, and other wildlife. Fair enough, but not scientifically proven.
• Then listed was the maintenance of the turbines; I'm not sure why this is a downside..?
• And then there is the significant loss and/or destruction of habitat to wildlife due to the large footprint left by the installation, but isn't this the same thing as the first bullet above, for which I agree.
• Serious devaluation of surrounding properties; perhaps a concern for some, but what do they want in exchange for clean air..?
• And, are you ready for this ... I was told that the #1 downside to wind power is -- the fact that there is a very high (up to 65%) taxpayer subsidy to the turbine companies through immediate and future tax breaks; well bowl me over, that is such a negative, I just can't take it. To think that some capitalist somewhere is going to profit, and not just from the economy (to which I could agree), but because of the tax break provided by congress. What a shame.

So chalk one up for Nuclear Energy, because it's downside is not as bad as this vast list. Yet I just don't get some of these so-called environmental leaders, they are for safe clean alternatives to oil and coal, yet they don't have any ideas ... of what the alternative is. Apparently their alternative is no energy at all. Go figure.