I'm assuming that was tongue in cheek. Nothing is perfectly "green" when it comes to energy conversion, but every "con" in this article could also be applied, to a much greater degree, to "non-green" fossil fuel mining, fossil fuel power plant construction, and fossil fuel plant operation. I have difficulty in understanding who the target audience would be for such an article. Who would take that much slanted bias without asking questions? If only wind opponents are the targeted audience, it is preaching to the choir. If targeted to the wind proponents, it falls far short of being a valid argument. In the end, it's a bunch of useless 0s and 1s filling up the internet world (like I'm doing right now).
The comparison of "green" electric cars is more complicated. They require energy from power plants in which the emissions comparison of gasoline vs coal indicates that the gasoline burning car is less polluting (considering all emissions) than the power plant that powers the "green" electric car. Not sure about that one though.
I guess I'm an idealist in expecting balanced facts from the same source (person, publication, media), rather than cherry picking only what supports the targeted audience. That's the problem with being so partial to science...it has spoiled me into an unrealistic expectation that I can trust other's technical opinions in terms of rational thought, and being void of political and religious ideologies. Instead, I must always be on guard as to the bias or slant provided by any thing/one outside of a pure science publication. Anyone who intentionally avoids both the pros and cons in their technical discussion, and attempting to sway me to "believe" their one-sided un-scientific argument, is no different than someone intentionally trying to lie to me.
Getting back to "Wind", although it is not "free power" as many are convinced it should be, we have an unusually large penetration of wind in our footprint (it has been as high as 36% of our load in the low-load periods of the day, and we're seeing many more >30% periods "on peak". With that said, after taking out congestion costs and other costs that could be added to any other type of generator, we've actually seen a system marginal price of <$0. With that said, this included the production tax credit they currently enjoy. The point is, wind had a rough start, as would any new technology that forces people to think differently. But I think it's here to stay, especially when looking at air quality deterioration in China and India.