You asked for a primary source. I gave you a primary source. You complained that it was from 2006. I have now given you a source from 2012. You can't now turn around and claim that your Wikipedia link (a secondary source) trumps my primary source, especially after you yourself insisted on a primary source in the first place. That's nuts.

I can only conclude that no amount of reality will convince you of the truth. I assure you, I am not the one making a fool of myself here.

I marvel at the audacity of someone who on the one hand insists on a primary source and on the other hand is upset that it's not in English. We're talking about France here, what language did you expect them to use?

The most recent available full report is from 2012 and it is at http://www.developpement-durab...

The relevant table is on page 22.

But really, why do I have to do this? Are you incapable of using Google on your own? I'm not interested in putting up with your childish spoon-feeding demands.

You obviously didn't follow and read the link in my comment. If you bother to read it, it says (in boldface no less):

"Reaching orbital speed takes much more fuel than reaching orbital height."

In other words, you're completely wrong.

The GP's point is that the gap between a space plane and a tourist craft is much, much bigger than the gap between a sawmill and an automobile. This point is often underappreciated.

To quote from XKCD:

"Getting to space is easy. It's not, like, something you could do in your car, but it's not a huge challenge. You could get a person to space with a small sounding rocket the size of a telephone pole. The X-15 aircraft reached space just by going fast and then steering up. But getting to space is easy. The problem is staying there."

The difference is, I admit wrong. I'm wrong about 100%.

But when it comes to the 75% figure, I'm right, and you're wrong, but you just can't admit it yet.

Do you have any technical contribution other than "100%! OMG! IDIOT!"?

I still don't see how you rationally believe that you know French energy production better than the government of France, but noooooo, according to you, it's me who is "misleading" and does not "match reality."

Hint: the table on page 9 is the one that includes coal imports.

You want a primary source? How about the GOVERNMENT OF FRANCE: http://www.statistiques.develo...

It's on page 7, in case you can't read.

The discussion is about global warming. Wind will not amount to anything on the planetary scale. It can power a grain mill, a city, or even a (smaller) country, but it's not going to change the course of global warming on its own. I agree we should pursue it. Even fractions are helpful. But that's all it is, a fraction.

For that matter, I never said nuclear was enough on its own. You made that up. Nuclear is also only a fraction of the solution. I believe it is a bigger fraction than wind.

Actually I don't even know what we're arguing about anymore. We both agree that a mix of energy is necessary. Unless you bring a debatable point to the table, I'm out.

The 75% figure is very well documented in multiple sources. It takes about 1 minute in Google to check. Doubting it does you no good.

I never said wind was useless. I said wind will never be a large contributor. There's a big gap between that and useless. I pity you that you cannot understand this.

The grid is straining at capacity right now. I do not believe it can be expanded to the scale that you claim.

Right now, wind supplies 4% of the world electric power supply. This is an indisputable and I hope uncontroversial fact.

The topic being discussed is (or certainly should be) global climate change. 4% is not going to affect global climate. We know this. Wind has not been demonstrated to scale much beyond 4%. I agree it could get to 6% of world supply. I'd be surprised if it gets to 10%. You can't transport wind from one place to another, so some countries will be left out of the windfall (bad pun). The grid doesn't cut it for power transport -- our grid is overloaded already. At best some countries can use wind as part of their solution. We will need other technologies in concert with wind. I hope for your sake that this statement is utterly uncontroversial.

Those other technologies include solar, hydro, and yes, nuclear. Nuclear power is safer than wind. We have plenty of nuclear fuel. I see that neither you nor anybody else has contested these points. At worst nuclear might be a bit more expensive than wind, but we need it nonetheless.

What is that, 10% of one country? That will make a difference in global warming? No it won't.

If we get up to 10% of the world supply, then we're talking. I don't understand what other goalposts you could possibly have in mind when the topic is planetary-scale global warming. Of course we need to measure things on a planetary scale in the context of this discussion. The goalposts must obviously be planet-scale supply. This is so obvious that I am amazed I even need to explain it.

I don't think wind will ever get up to even 10% of world supply. It's certainly not there yet. I'd be happy to be proved wrong. At best wind is part of a solution together with other renewables. I include nuclear in the renewables category -- we need all the extra percents we can get.

OK, if you want to get all technical, France gets 75% of its power from nuclear plants. So I exaggerated.

Now show me a large-ish country that gets 75% of its power from wind. Go ahead.

If you have a real argument you would not need to resort to name-calling.

If anything, country-scale quantities are actually INADEQUATE to demonstrate the viabiliy of wind power.

When it comes to renewables, one can't transport energy inputs from one country to another. This is a big difference compared to, say, nuclear power, where transporting uranium is relatively trivial. I mean, my country (Canada) generates 59% of its power from hydro, but I would not be so obtuse as to suggest that just because Canada can do it, so can everybody else. For example Chad is not going to use hydro power in a million years. Not every country has the appropriate wind/water/sun needed to produce wind/hydro/water power. Nuclear power is one of the few renewable technologies where there are no technical barriers to universal deployment.

Are you really so dense that you can't understand the concept that the scale of our power needs today far exceeds that of Don Quixote's day?

Show me a single country that runs on 100% all wind power all the time. Go ahead. Meanwhile, I point out France, which runs on 100% nuclear power for all of its electricity, every day, all the time.

I'm happy to let readers decide on their own who is being whiny here. I agree Germany will be convincing, but they haven't deployed their farms yet. It's a future deployment. Obviously a future deployment is no good for the purposes of establishing a present-day track record. There is no goalpost being moved here. I said all along that wind lacks a track record. If you come back and five years and tell me that Germany has done it, then I will agree you have a valid point. But right now, you don't have a valid point.