So add that to the mix of what it takes to build a wind turbine. I'm not sure of the cost of copper production but I bet it's not cheap or easy on the environment.
Might be something to factor in.
https://www.copper.org/publications/pub_list/pdf/a6198-na-wi...
Most uses of copper in wind power can be substituted by aluminum when copper prices rise. Speaking on behalf of copper producers who want to impede substitution, the report says:
Substitution by aluminum can be addressed with proactive promotion based on copper’s known benefits of higher energy efficiency (reduction of energy losses) and assurance of long‐term reliability. Aluminum is vulnerable here due to its lower strength, relaxation behavior and corrosion resistance. The downstream technical and economic risks associated with “value engineering” copper out of critical components are unknown. And, because the costs or repair, maintenance and downtime are known to be high in wind‐energy plants, copper promotion based on reducing life‐cycle costs through improved reliability and efficiency should be a worthwhile undertaking. Institutional promotion through the establishment of prudent codes, standards and recommended practices is also recommended.
It's a mixture of highlighting legitimate engineering concerns, raising FUD about failure to address those concerns, and trying to get copper specifically entrenched in codes and standards so that aluminum will not be allowed to compete with copper.
For answering the specific question of how much copper current wind power uses, see table 2-1. There's a lot of variation. The project built with 2.1 MW turbines from Suzlon had a copper intensity of 6.8 tonnes (14,900 pounds) per megawatt, while the project with 3.0 MW turbines from Vestas took only 2.5 tonnes (5600 lbs) per megawatt. Mass of copper per turbine is a poor metric because turbines come in various generating capacities.
Referendum voters. And those of us involved in public service, even if at a peripheral level.