Hadley cells determine wind patterns but not the energy content of the wind, to any appreciable degree, which comes from solar flux.
Wind energy is solar energy once removed.
Wave energy is solar energy twice removed (solar -> wind -> waves).
Wind energy is solar energy once removed.
Wave energy is solar energy twice removed (solar -> wind -> waves).
Ditto for hurricanes. Hurricanes turn rising/falling air into cycling air into hurricane force winds because the Earth rotates. But the energy for it came from the Sun. Often removed by another factor, Sun warms ocean, ocean drives the storm.
Earth's rotation directs the energy imbued by the Sun, much as ductwork directs airflow through a structure imbued by blower motors.
But neither wind, nor ducted airflow, originate from, are driven by, or otherwise exhaust the Earth's rotation, or the containing ductwork, respectively.
(Yes, there are frictional forces of the atmosphere against the Earth's surface. On balance these probably net out, as atmospheric flows at large scale are balanced, else we'd end up with a zone of vacuum and one of infinite pressure on the Earth's surface.)
The original question was "How much [wind] is due to earth's rotation?", in the context of whether or not wind is a renewable energy resource. Given that wind is fundamentally driven by solar flux, wind is renewable, and it is not driven (vs. directed or influenced) in any meaningful way by Earth's rotation.
In practice, wave action is caused by fetches across hundreds or thousands of kilometres of sea surface, and even offshore wind farms tend to be located within a few km of shorelines.
As with other impacts described, the potential interactions with bird life (strikes, kills, behavioural disruption), and of the artificial-reef effects of offshore turbine foundations and anchorages (probably largely positive) would all but certainly dominate these by many orders of magnitude.