Treehugger also has a post on the NYT stories: New York Times Trashes Wind Power. Twice.

This quote they've taken from the NYT is breathtakingly stupid:

Yet Sweden's gleaming wind park is entering service at a time when wind energy is coming under sharper scrutiny, not just from hostile neighbors, who complain that the towers are a blot on the landscape, but from energy experts who question its reliability as a source of power.

For starters, the wind does not blow all the time. When it does, it does not necessarily do so during periods of high demand for electricity. That makes wind a shaky replacement for more dependable, if polluting, energy sources like oil, coal and natural gas. Moreover, to capture the best breezes, wind farms are often built far from where the demand for electricity is highest. The power they generate must then be carried over long distances on high-voltage lines, which in Germany and other countries are strained and prone to breakdowns.

Stop the presses! The wind does not blow all the time! World exclusive, must credit NYT! Developing...

So wind power requires a bit more investment in the energy grid. Big deal. I seem to remember a few news items here showing that wind power actually led to lower energy prices and that with a better developed grid, could cover most of the energy demand.