I find many of the objections and statements of the anti wind posts on here are bemusing. In any case sorry in advance for the long post that follows.
As a background I would like to mention that lots of independent info on Wind and any other system are available to anyone who wishes to look. However solid, peer reviewed information coming from engineers and scientists of many disciplines is hard to find. A good source of useful info can be found here from the openly available course material of next generation engineers at the department for "Nuclear, Plasma and Radiological Engineering", University of Illinois.
https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/www/N ... %20Systems. Tons of material available and hardly a pro wind department
Please consider the following:
What energy systems are the detractors of wind energy systems (of varying degrees) proposing instead and how do they compare? Why should investors not get a return on their investment? Why is 'any' scale Wind any different for investment than any other large or small scale energy generation?
Small scale wind is one of the best possible types of installation we can make use of in the West coast of Scotland at the moment. However small scale has certainly benefited from the advances, research and investment and competition of the large scale systems. Yet it is also less efficient than larger turbines and less efficient than higher turbines eg 50m high is 30% better than 10m high systems on average. Except we can see a 50m tower much further away...oops. Nevertheless, if Farmers can and should benefit from small scale wind dotted (locally) across the region then why can't businesses in general benifit from more efficient larger scale installations?
Currently only coal and Gas and other carbon sources are cheaper than wind on a large scale.(source linked below)
Hydro can also be cheaper in Scotland but new scope is limited and ofgems rules are not helping. Hydro should be exploited to the max where we can, nevertheless it is only going to be a fraction and not without its own downsides. Just look at Norway who are 98% Hydro and diversifying away from it.
Nuclear Fission is unfortunately a no brainer, economically, as it now has a TCO higher than all of the above + costs are increasing more rapidly than all the rest + all the major long term effects or risks into the bargain. It does provide a business case on a very large scale and has its usefulness for base load. I don't feel these negative aspects mean it should be abandoned all together as a source of supply and there is also the hope of reliable fusion down the road. From a UK perspective there is still maybe a case for Nuclear in the South and as part of energy security of supply (though edf recently pulling out of UK projects and 2x cost overruns elsewhere eg Finland puts this in major doubt). Any UK business case certainly gets weaker or non existent as you go North.
Economics of Wind power
=====================
Figures people quote about wind efficiency, viability and economics can be misleading. However this document provides well balanced coverage based on US data.
https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/www/N ... Energy.pdf Yes it is lower efficiency than Coal, Gas, Nuclear etc. But Nuclear is certainly more expensive than wind on average.
Secondly the lower efficiency of Wind is less detrimental simply because the source itself is free + opex is low. This is what makes the locally generated small scale, but less efficient systems for farmers such a good fit.
I am not going to change any mind here but please don't think wind is going to increase consumer bills over other options. Consumer bills are going to go up anyway, everywhere, bar none, with or without wind. However while the cost for Coal , Gas and Nuclear are going up, renewable costs in general, including wind, are coming down.
Note on GAS (my own opinion): Gas should be the cheaper and is also the cleanest non renewable source. Why is gas still so expensive then? a) base gas price is linked to price of oil. b) In the UK, Scotland (from latest available figures) exports 6 times as much gas as we use to our neighbours. We are an exporter. However the UK is an importer of GAS and the UK(outwith Scotland) gets 40% of its gas supply from Norway, at huge expense via the Sleipner pipeline. The longest in the world and cost a large fortune. The constructors of this ensure its viability due to a trade agreement between the UK and Norway that ensures the costs will be paid back over a long time. This gets passed to the UK consumer, noting though that Scottish consumers have no need whatsoever of this pipeline, cannot receive any of this gas anyway even if we did, but share the costs.
Note on household renewables: These are the least efficient of all but have role to play though in general in Scotland, better insulation and better quality housing has a much better ROI than any self generation alternatives. I find it strange that the building regulations in France and indeed the much warmer South of France has much stricter insulation and energy regulations than we do in Scotland. Go figure. For those who can read french check out the 2012 requirements "La Réglementation Thermique 2012 (RT2012)"
http://www.legrenelle-environnement.fr/ ... ,1394.htmlIf you managed to read all this without falling to sleep, ta!
there are or will be over a 100 of them: http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lqi9anORDE1qjw2is.jpg -all agian making our electricity cost more than it needs to do. 
