Thanks for writing about this. You might agree that the effort put into wind power is all for profit, so it's actually profit to blame for the decision to sacrifice what is obviously highly beneficial woodland for this wind turbine farm.
My own work shows why technically wind is actually just another form of energy extraction from the planet, therefore further pushing up temperature, no overall benefit can come from it, all it does is funnel some extracted wealth, we might say mathematically negative wealth, into the pockets of a few, the net result is that we increase our energy debt to the planet, as surely as we do by oil, though the relative amount is much less, it's still negative energy, therefore perpetuating the system of energy slavery which is fully dependent on energy being mathematcally negative (subtracted from the planet, rather than added).
Its a fault of mainstream science that it has become dependent on profit, hence why it can't truly fully address the energy problem, there will be mainstream scientists depending on funding for / from wind farms like the one identified, this is why mainstream science does not go as far as mathematically signing energy in order to audit and compare the effects of using it, and this in turn is why the economy is dark, still no light gets in, by no money being issued on the physical economic product created by it, in fact it is misinterpretation and misrepresentation of solar energy as being the same as all the others, that keeps us in the doomer mindset, when even a five year old would recognise that to allow solar powered things to grow, not only does the plant need to see the sun, things need to happen inside the plant, to enable the energy to flow throughout the plant, and on to Earth.
We have not changed what needs to change, to transmit the solar energy received to all needing it - money. This is what transmits the energy all modern humans need at least to metabolise, money serves the same purpose as nutrients in a plant. But currently the energy at the input is from the planet, rather than from sun, the way all plants start before they formed their first leaves, they too take out an energy overdraft from the planet to form their first leaves, but after those form, the plant switches it's energy dependence from Earth to sun.
This is where we are failing, we are not issuing money in response to the energy being received by our leaves, like a plant does with its nutrients.
Anyhow if mainstream science was to accept this information and publicise it, the problem of wind farms coming to replace trees would not be happening.
In fact we can even see how to recover / regenerate greenery in desert areas using solar powered air-conned greenhouses, and all of it would work to reduce temperature because thats what photosynthesis does, it creates, reversing entropy.
By not publicising this, mainstream science is actually being dishonest.
Recall lies are not information, creation of which cools, lies are misinformation which just adds to chaos, heating, destroying real information.
We just wouldnt be doing wind at all, we won't need it after we've truly gone solar, ie photosynthetic, as trees are, and we won't need to be replacing trees with panels or solar farms, at least not much, we are finding ways to work with solar amongst trees and plants in a way that doesn't impact them. If we recognised the value in solar, we'd recognise the value of all things photosynthetic - the value of creation rather than destruction.
The energy aquisiition equation with wind turbines is still one of the turbine mechanics doing some work (which wears it out), and generates heat, from the wind, which was not heat before. So the KWhrs from wind are not for free, they are energy profit, hence supporting business for profit, and as always this is monetised destruction, raising temperature.