As I understand it, the reason turbines aren't made of wood is because performance matters so much - wind speeds are much higher the further up you go, so increasing the height of a wind turbine lets it be closer to high wind speeds (doubling wind speeds gives ~8 times the power!) while simultaneously providing more space for longer blades.

And increasing the length of the blades also provides more than linear improvements - doubling the length of the blades gives something like 4 times the power output.

So you could imagine how hard it is for wood to get traction - suppose that wood means the turbine accesses 10% slower wind speeds and also has 10% smaller blades. If I didn't fumble the maths (0.9^4 * 0.9^8), that would mean only a FIFTH of the energy!

I'm keeping my eye on wooden wind-turbine stuff like Modvion (side note: Modvion are combining wood turbines with a modular, which is really smart as wood is less dense and therefore causes more trucking problems and costs, and making the design modular means they can potentially reduce trucking costs to cheaper than conventional designs instead of more expensive, while simultaneously benefiting from the sunk costs of wood being limited to the size of a tree unless you combine materials together), but they're building a preliminary tower that won't come online until ~2022, so it's not tech that's viable today.

Also, as your article says: Financially speaking, nobody cares unless there's a solid tax on non-recyclable materials or carbon emissions. Wooden turbines are more useful in the real world than they are in the artificial market we live in, which refuses to acknowledge the large cost of our carbon emissions.