Almost always in articles of renewable energy the real cost is never stated. It infuriates me, because the key information is OK what is the tradeoff of this energy source vs other. The key elements are obviously the amount of pollution (include all factors including side effects of building the power source), the costs (all costs including subsidies) of both building and operating, lifetime and the costs to decommission or refurbish.

There was a line in the article from a dissenter, "We think the vast sums spent on wind farms would be better spent on research and innovation in other energy sources." I think this is probably accurate. If the millions spent subsidizing wind were spent making coal power plants less polluting and more efficient, it would probably reduce carbon emissions much more than having the renewable energy source.