I'd overlooked that example of subsidy corruption.

The present subsidies in Europe tend to be of the form of 10-yr commitment to purchase power with a few-cent premium per kwh. For some sources, the guarantee to purchase is more important than the premium. A good wind site is already cost competitive if they can avoid the costs of marketing and selling to the grid. Even in the US you find a few turbines going in without needing subsidies, e.g., Hull.

The US subsidy comes and goes depending on the annual whims of Congress, but for a long time now wind subsidies have been 1-2 cents per kwh delivered. It has made a big change for wind producers. Probably the first change was the turbine manufacturers, who started designing for production efficiency and maintenance cost instead of construction cost. The subsidy change happened first in Europe, so you see the European manufacturers dominating wind.

Many of the old California turbines were never worth building. They were in windy locations, but not properly sited. When the subsidy is for construction why waste money on local siting studies. Some are being replaced. The new turbines are being sited based on the detailed wind data from the old turbines. They found that some were never worth building and will not be replaced. Those will be torn down for scrap.

Another microscale that is moving into the northern areas is co-gen home heating. It does not make good financial sense, but for $20,000 you can put in a high efficiency home heating system that is also an electricity generator. Another 10 years and the turbine designs may be buildable at a reasonable cost. At present, these sell to enthusiasts who don't mind the cost and to those few unusual customers where the finances work out.