Wind turbines scalability limited by roads and underpasses

But sadly, the article itself is exactly what you'd expect from an undereducated journalist writing on a subject that sits at the intersection of two disciplines (engineering and economics) that lay audiences are all but incapable of understanding separately. You can tell, for example, that even for the author the notion of "opportunity cost" just didn't penetrate, if he was exposed to it at all. One of many bizarre moments of hilarity: the knee-jerk impulse to inform us that the death toll from transporting turbine parts has risen as high as one.

There is no discussion whatsoever of the real costs of large-scale deployment of wind power systems. At best (i.e., if the rollout of wind generation continues to accelerate), we might be able to get 4-5% of our power from wind after another 20 years of effort, with the help of generous federal subsidies and at the cost of greatly increased instability in the power grid.

EDIT: One more thing. I'm skeptical that this new information will prompt environmental groups to stop arguing that we should ignore nuclear power options because the build-out phase would put too much stress on existing infrastructure.

e.g. http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/11/boeings-skyhook-jhl-40-bl...

That NYT writer has become a real renewable energy Concern troll: always whining about some so-called unsolvable problem for renewable energy at the NYT Green Inc blog - it should be called Brown Inc.

Really, people - noting a genuine technical problem with effects on peoples' lives is some attempt at sabotaging renewable energy? That attitude's right up there with the warbloggers from a few years back who'd squeal in outrage if anyone in the media dared question the president.

The "omfg" stories were horrible. They are claiming that wind power sucks because we have bad drivers on the road slamming into overpasses.