http://www.insidescience.org/content/studies-show-wind-powers-massive-potential/782
and
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n2/full/nclimate1683.html
" . . . their simulations suggest that at least 400 terawatts -- or 400 trillion watts of power -- could be generated from surface winds, and more than 1,800 terawatts could be extracted from winds throughout the atmosphere. In comparison, people globally currently use about 18 terawatts of power."
______________________________
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/wind_ad.html
"A cumulative total of
7,600 million tons of CO2 would be avoided by 2030, and more than 15,000 million tons of CO2 would be avoided by 2050.
Reduce cumulative water consumption in the electric sector by 8% or 4 trillion gallons from 2007 through 2030.
Significantly reduce natural gas demand and reduce natural gas prices by 12%,
saving consumers approximately $130 billion.
To produce enough turbines and components for the 20% wind scenario, the industry would require more than
30,000 direct manufacturing jobs across the nation (assuming that 30% – 80% of major turbine components would be manufactured domestically by 2030).
Lease payments for wind turbines would generate well over $600 million for landowners in rural areas and generate additional local tax revenues exceeding $1.5 billion annually by 2030. From 2007 through 2030,
cumulative economic activity would exceed $1 trillion or more than $440 billion in net present value terms." [all emphases mine]
So, in sum:
- reduction of CO2
- more jobs
- lowered demand for and price of natural gas
- reduced water consumption
- increase economic activity of at least $1,000,000,000,000
I suspect your refusal to accept the science and economic reality of just this one example of what is now called "green" energy is due either to an emotional or political factor, or both of those factors.
I suspect the way you feel about this is very similar to the way many people in the 1800s feared the introduction of new technologies.