I shared an airplane ride sitting next to a repair engineer. He said that one of the major problems of the wind turbines is that they weren't designed to withstand major temperature fluctuations - ie they were developed in France for temperate weather. Having come from Montana with some of the the most extreme temperature in the US (>100 F in summer, -40 F in winter common), this was a staggering acknowledgement. He said that the turbines there were lucky to be operational 25% of the time. That's just operational - not just spinning.

I did the calculations one time and even with one of those things spinning 100% of the time, the payback was 15-20 years (without subsidies). What a freaking boondoggle.

If wind is as important and as effective as portrayed, it doesn't need subsidies. It should stand on it's own to pay for itself.

There are many upcoming technologoes that will be better choices with a better bottom line. IF it does not pay for itself it is not time for it !!!

When a greenie looks at one of these windmills and sees the blades turning they may get a warm inner glow.
Fantasy, blades must turn to prevent shaft bending and bearing seizing, often they are consuming, not generating, electric power. I understand that some of the bigger ones have diesel motors built in. The net electricity generation could not justify a 100 year installation, about 10 years is more like it.