WIth the govt subsidies, it ends up usually costing the householder pretty much zero.
Sure, DC, but who pays for the subsidies? That would be you, the taxpayer, helping pay everybody else's subsidies. (Can't help this... I'm an economist. They don't call economics "The Dismal Science" for nothing.) :o
The problem with wind power is that the wind doesn't blow steadily all the time, even in Teddy Kennedy'r front yard off Cape Cod. If you don't care if your power is steady - for lighting, heating, air conditioning, running traffric signals, air-control radars and radios, manufacturing... whatever, then wind power is really neat. If you do need to have a steady supply, you must have a backup source with sufficient capacity to keep all these nice things going without interruption when the wind dies down.
There is no way to store electrical energy (except for pumped storage - look if up. It goes with hydropower.) And it doesn't work with wind or solar energy without big infrastructure modification. And I hardly need remind you the sun doesn't shine 24/7.
Only nuclear, oil, gas, hydro, and coal plants will provide steady supply. Our president says nuclear power is a legitimate aspiration for Iran, but not for us. China is building coal plants every day; the the President has promised to pass laws that will bankrupt any new coal-fired power plant. We've pretty much exploited most of our hydro resources.
China and Russia are exploring for oil in the Gulf of Mexico, but we can't according to our government; to say nothing of Alaska or our coastal waters.
Put you head down between your legs and kiss your standard of living goodby.
Enough rant for this week.