I've read that most wind energy systems are only cost competitive because of government subsidies in the first place. So while there may be some payback to the government over time it wouldn't be much different (from a pure financial standpoint) than if the government subsidized coal-fired or nuclear plants, would it? It also turns out that insurance companies are beginning to refuse to insure wind tower generators or crank up the insurance rates because of liability concerns should they fall apart in bad weather and because their stated lifetimes are falling far short of predictions. (Often the maintenance of wind farms are covered by insurance policies.) The operation lifetimes of regular power plants are much longer and reliable than those of wind farms. Having said that, if your goal is to reduce greenhouse gasses and other pollutants then wind power is a good way to go - but it could end up costing a lot more than "conventional" power plants. You would also have to include the costs of pollution remediation for conventional power plants if want a very accurate cost/benefit analysis. If the calculations are too simplistic they will not render good information for future policy decisions, and special interests in certain industries will attempt to get political favors at the federal level. Nothing new there, I guess.

Wind power is starting to be backed by more and more respected industrialists. Billionaire oilman T. Boone Pickens is creating a 4,000 Megawatt wind farm in west Texas and states that he could continue creating farms like this all up the midwest wind corridor all the way to Canada. The turbines generate about $20,000 a year in royalty income for the farmer who owns the land.

If industries like oil, coal, hydroelectric, nuclear are profitable why would they require government subsidies?

Just don't try to build one anywhere Ted Kennedy sails his yacht.

"If industries like oil, coal, hydroelectric, nuclear are profitable why would they require government subsidies?"

Well isn't that the whole point? Why do wind farms require subsidies? To be competitive! I doubt T Bone Pickens will not avail himself to the benefits of government subsidies for his projects.

It's interesting to note that the GE (General Electric) study that sparked this post only looks at a 10 year period. It includes a 2.1 cent credit for every kilowatt hour produced, and goes on to say that if the credit is not extended that the industry's rapid growth will slow. I'm not against the idea of this but wind energy is actually very expensive if you consider all the costs and subsidies. It ends up being just another federal tax money redistribution scheme since it is not cost competitive with standard generation methods. It's very likely that some of your tax money will go into T Boone Picket's pockets!

As far as how much revenue goes to a land owner it's on the order of $2,000 to $4,000 dollars per large turbine so what you can get depends on how many you can site on your property.

wind & solar power costs are fixed - regardless of subsidy or not. Coal and other "dirty" forms of power have additional costs not factored in such as waste, pollution, mitigation, health risks, ensuing health issues, and then rising health care costs - I bet if all these things were factored into coal, subsidies wouldn't even need to be in place for it to be competitive. Though I find it hard to put a price-tag on the unknown health issues we're not even seeing yet.

This is a VERY important fact which few people understand. What's more, when we remove the billions of dollars in subsidies which fossilized industries receive each year, wind power comes out even further ahead!

You know why wind power isnt wide spread? The same reason we cant drill for our own oil.

One word: environmentalists.

They are angry at wind farms for killing too many birds. The birds are so stupid they fly right into them, and get killed.

http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2005/10/69177