1. It must be competetive with fossil or nuclear energy derived electricity.
2. The environmental damage to the locals must be fully compensated, those blades make a bucket load of noise and chew up the occasional bird.
3. No government monies can be used to subsidize the wind power.
The above three criteria in effect would stop all wind power generated electricity today. When and if wind power can meet the above criteria I will support it. Today it does not meet even one requirement much less all three.
I have absolutely no problem with wind power and support it if it can pass the following criteria.
4. It must be totally invisable to the naked eye.
There is of course one more concern. Wind transfers energy (heat) from one place on Earth to another. If enough windmills are built, they will slow the wind down and extract that energy from the wind. As result, the energy will not be released where it was meant to be. The air will be colder. How will this impact the precious climate that so many "scientists" are agog about?
Note that if the air gets colder then the water vapor in it condenses into water droplets. You will get clouds and rain where no rain was supposed to be, and accordingly other locations will not get that water. I somehow doubt that any of that was included into the environmental study.
The killer is its epic unreliability. That’s the reason for all this “smart grid” talk you see in TV ads, you know. They figure that if you could just cover the world with these things you could convert time averages to spatial averages, and let the “smart grid” figure it all out. I don’t think it works even on paper.
That's not really correct. Wind in Texas generally meets your three criteria.