In fact, using just 1% of the high altititude winds could power the whole world.
So, why is it not a viable solution yet?

Well, the technology is still in its infancy – the dynamo’s are just not efficient enough yet.
That’s the problem, so until the scientists can figure that one out, wind power will never replace nuclear power as the alternative energy source.

“weak and unreliable” – where I live the wind is bloody strong and very much guaranteed.

[edited to add]

This seems to fall foul of the idea that the “value” of an energy source is dependent on the amount of energy it can release in a very short period of time. For example, using plastic explosive is a very strong source of energy – at the moment of detonation there is a LOT of force passed. However, it releases its energy over such a short period (and in a reasonably small space) this would be useless for providing (for example) energy to run my refrigerator. Wind power provides an almost constant supply of energy over a huge area.

Yes, detonating C4 every 10 seconds, every day of the year would result in more overall energy than windpower but is that a realistic option?

I am not a huge advocate of windpower (I am, bizarrely, quite a fan of nuclear power but I accept other people’s reservations) but I recognise the massive benefit it can provide. I also think wind turbines add to a landscape. The idea of an effectively unlimited supply of cheap energy is a wonderful one to me, and to that end wind power is a winner.

The whole truth about wind turbines is never told by lobbyists and governments.
How could the very weak and extremely unreliable initial energy source of a wind turbine ever produce a steady power of any significance?
Please think!
And read: “Wind energy- the whole truth” !
😈