Um, the entire western half of San Francisco is basically suburbs, with very few buildings over six stories high, and the terrain in that area terrain gradually ascends, so in other words, most of that half of the city is pretty much "right on the coastline where the air-currents are coming right off the ocean." Also, another area that gets an eff-ton of ocean air-current wind pretty much all the time? The Golden Gate Bridge... you know, the same bridge that you'd have to transmit electricity across (nonexistent power lines) if you were sourcing it from a dam in Muir Woods, many miles to the north of said bridge.
... Okay, I've made my point, and will leave said particular point alone from now on.
This doesn't happen very often online, but
I'm going to admit you won the argument.
I can't provide an iron-clad rationalization for why wind turbines couldn't have been erected within city-limits. Within some metropolitan areas maybe, but the wind-currents off the ocean are probably sufficient in many places (including the bridge).
Whether they had the tools necessary to erect them, I dunno, but then it really gets into the minutiae.
I'll concede it's a genuine plot-hole, and I was willing to concede it as a plot-hole before, only that there MIGHT have been some way for them to try to rationalize it in some missing dialogue during the exchange about there being no-alternative.
That being said, does acknowledging plot-hole hinder my enjoyment of the movie? No. Mainly because I like to process movies more based on the message they're trying to convey and the character arcs. The thematic purpose of the film would not be realized if they merely erected wind-turbines. Someone flagged me for saying this by saying "META ARGUMENT!" Whatever that means.
There are a lot of left-brained people who like to deconstruct films purely on the basis of their inner-consistency. If there's a plot-hole (think Checkov not being seen during Space Seed) then they harp on it and harp on it as if they've got his "gotcha" that is supposed to make everyone throw up their hands and say "Yep, that means the film sucks." Well, maybe that's how it works for some people, but I think most people leave some room for poetic license.
Remember, this is a film that has to sell you on talking apes riding horses and shooting guns. And if you saw (or will see) it, you'll realize it does a damn good job of it, mostly by virtue of the FX and the 100% serious performance-capture on the part of Serkis and company. While it has its popcorn moments, it's ultimately played very straight, zero camp. And I felt the sincerity of the production from the first frame to the last. That's what I keyed on, not the plot-hole over power-sources.
I wonder if they would ever remake the original Planet of the Apes in the new continuity?
The problem is the original Apes played out like a Twilight Zone movie (or M Night movie) and so the twist at the end (as obvious as it was) was the whole purpose. Since the audience already knows what happened, the process of gradual discovery that Taylor goes through doesn't work the same way. The theme that could still carry over is one in which the Apes gradually appropriate human technology and rewrite biblical history to place themselves in the center of the universe, denying the fact they didn't come first and mostly stole all they knew from their current slaves. They began to setup Maurice as a "Lawgiver" character, but I would think it would take a long long time for the Ape society to begin to resemble the one we saw in the original 60s film. That society was kind of a cross between medieval and old-west, whereas nuApes is currently at a native-american level.
