Wind is a powerful force of nature. Evidence of this is all around us, and we need only look at the structural damage a summertime downdraft or a tornado or hurricane can cause.

And yet there’s one thing that wind simply can’t do: power our energy grid.

It would be nice if it were otherwise. Imagine tapping into an unlimited natural energy source that would never run out. We could cut our ties with gas, oil, and even carbon-footprint-free nuclear energy forever. Unfortunately, this dream is never going to materialize — not even as the Left tries to force us toward a so-called green energy world.

The inconsistency and unreliability of wind, and its lack of relative energy density compared to, say, nuclear, are its most visible problems. But another problem is the rising cost of the wind turbines themselves due to the rare earth minerals required to build and maintain them.

“The wind business, viewed by governments as key to meeting climate targets and boosting electricity supplies, is facing a dangerous market squall,” reports The Wall Street Journal. “After months of warnings about rising prices and logistical hiccups, developers and would-be buyers of wind power are scrapping contracts, putting off projects and postponing investment decisions. The setbacks are piling up for both onshore and offshore projects.”

These projects are not only costly for investors and green energy companies but also for American taxpayers now that the Biden administration has expanded loans and tax credits. As the Journal reported back in April: “The tax-credit boom could undermine another administration talking point about the law: The claim that it will reduce long-run budget deficits. [Financial industry] analyses contend that the tax credits could cost American taxpayers three times as much as the $271 billion forecast when Congress passed the law.”

As noted above, the high cost of catching the wind is only one concern. These Cuisinarts in the sky aren’t good for bird populations, either, and they disrupt sensitive communications signals. It’s no wonder, then, that more people around the world are beginning to say enough is enough.

“In June, thousands of Druze residents in the Golan Heights rioted to stop the installation of a large wind project on their traditional lands,” writes energy expert Robert Bryce. “Last month, Australia’s largest farmers union said it wanted a moratorium on new solar projects. In May, a wind project in Colombia being pushed by the Italian company, Enel, was canceled after it met fierce opposition from the indigenous Wayuu communities.”

“Meanwhile,” Bryce adds, “here in the U.S., over the last 10 days, local governments in Illinois, Ohio, and Iowa have rejected or restricted wind and solar projects. Those moves bring the total number of rejections or restrictions in the Renewable Rejection Database to 574.”

These wind projects are also coming under scrutiny due to public health concerns. For example, both the audible and inaudible noise produced by turbines are causing sleep deprivation and sickness among a significant percentage of those living near them.

Fortunately, most wind turbines are placed in remote areas where wind speeds are greater, but that causes higher costs when it comes to connecting the grid back to population centers. Where the turbines exist, they must be constructed to reach heights of hundreds of feet in order to catch wind strong enough to make running the systems viable. Transporting these massive windmills to their sites is quite an undertaking, which adds to their overall costs. And that’s assuming land is even available.

As to our earlier point about energy density, wind power requires a massive terrestrial footprint. Just ask Harvard University, whose researchers discovered that “the transition to wind or solar power in the U.S. would require five to 20 times more land than previously thought, and, if such large-scale wind farms were built, would warm average surface temperatures over the continental U.S. by 0.24 degrees Celsius.”

So much for the Left’s concern about global warming.

Nonetheless, in states along the East Coast, Democrat governors and legislators are going full speed ahead on wind power projects that cost their taxpayers while benefiting companies like Denmark’s Orsted, which signed onto a $1.6 billion deal back in 2019 … and then came back to New Jersey to ask for more money.

As the Journal reports: “New Jersey Democrats responded with a bill that offsets a large share of Orsted’s costs. The catch is that the relief will come at the direct expense of electricity ratepayers. The law deletes a previous provision in Orsted’s agreement that required the company to use any federal tax credits it receives to offset the rates it will charge for the power it generates.”

The Danes are making their mark off the coastline of Maryland and Delaware, as well, where the company’s turbines will stand in the ocean, waiting for a breeze and powering a small fraction of homes. The cost of the project has increased nearly $3 billion since the 2021 estimates were made public.

In the end, though, all this talk about wind power is a lot of hot air. There are far cheaper and more efficient forms of energy available to us, but our elected officials still seem a long way from ditching their “green” obsession.