It never glows--even in bright light--and you have to hold it over your head yourself. — Bitter Crank

Even while driving? Seems dangerous. :D

I am not looking for a pat on the back; just saying that I am not blithely neglecting the kinds of concerns being expressed here.

True. So do hills, mountains, tall buildings, and big trees. "A turbine's 116-ft blades atop a 212-ft tower for a total height of 328 feet sweep a vertical airspace of just under an acre. The air above 328 feet (all the way up for miles) is sublimely indifferent to windmills, even if there were 1 million of them. — Bitter Crank

Indeed. In theory though you could have a trillion super-massive windmills (theory) and actually start to see some negative environmental ramifications resulting from altered wind patterns. The pool of wind energy is so massive and replenishes itself so easily that it would take human construction far beyond any scale yet seen to even begin to dent it. There is no direct environmental impact from a spinning prop in the sky or from the electricity we get out of it, and so basically wind energy is 100% clean.

Nuclear energy could be better (safer) IF we standardized parts (the way the French have). — Bitter Crank

I'm not against nuclear energy in principle, I just need to be convinced that the dice rolls have sufficiently minimized risks. Nuclear energy is clean in terms of greenhouse gas emissions compared to fossil fuels, but we've already had two major meltdowns (Fukushima and Chernobyl) so it seems like we're trading accelerated climate change over the long run for an increase in localized irradiation events. France might be ready for nuclear power but the rest of the global political idiot class so incentivized to build Nuclear power plants seems to be a bit less prepared...

I don't have a huge amount of trust in the class that owns and operates nuclear power plants. Would they cut corners to save money and increase the risk? Is the pope Catholic?