jamesgangnc used improper usenet mesage composition style by
full-quoting:

The energy potential in a wind field is measured in terms of the
swept area of the blades.

So how can you capture a respectible fraction of this energy by
using thin blades that "see" or experience only a small fraction
of this swept area, vs using fatter blades that expose themselves
to a greater percentage of this wind field?

Fat and thin. They are all airfoils.

A typical air foil is an airplane wing. The "foil" is cross-sectional
profile - curved upper surface, flat lower surface. The foil is what
gets you life when it's moved forward through the air. You create a
low-pressure area on the upper surface.

I can move air with flat blade angled at 45 degrees. The blade doesn't
need a foil-shaped cross section - instead it can be flat. When a flat
blade is angled (any angle other than 0) and rotated, it is pushing air
out of the way as it turns.

Similarly, wind that wants to move past the blade must push it aside,
and in doing so it will rotate the hub. The more surface area you
present to the wind (ie the wider the blade) the more rotational force
you transmit to the hub.

Do you think they woudn't use fat blades if they worked better?

Maybe it's all a scam. Maybe wind turbines don't need to cost a few
million each, and be hundreds of feet tall with blades made from exotic
materials and methods.

You think engineers didn't design the blades on wind turbines?

Explain what's wrong with my concept.

How much cross-sectional area is occupied by the blades in a water
turbine as water flows past them in a hydro-electric station?