> Wind and solar resources can provide an order of magnitude more than what we currently consume. [2] Why are you linking a study that just looks at the potent

> Wind and solar resources can provide an order of magnitude more than what we currently consume. [2] Why are you linking a study that just looks at the potential wind kinetic energy available for conversion? A study that ignores where the bulk of useful wind turbines would need to be built? That ignores the economics and ecological impact? I mean that study is pretty clear about what it's looking at, and it isn't at all what you're implying. "We elected in this study to exclude forested, urban, permanently ice covered, and inland water regions" Uhhhh. Cool, in more breaking news, theoretically if we cleared flora/fauna and covered 1/5 of each continent in solar panels we'd also exceed our energy demand! Did you just google your premise and pick a paper that vaguely seemed like it agrees with your presupposition? Take the time to actually read it. Sorry for ignoring the rest of your gish gallop. I'm sure you understand that it's hard to engage in serious debate with people who scan your entire post for a couple of uncited fragments and latch on to those one by one. If you held yourself to the same standard, your entire comment would need to be broken down line by line and attacked since you have cited nothing. Especially if you're ignoring commonly understood facts like the existence of a nuclear waste disposal cycle, or if you're citing completely unrelated papers without even checking them first.