Well, I'm just baffled by the contradictions here.  He describes an imminent threat of the death of most living things, and then rejects wind which can be installed in less than a year, and prefers a solution (nuclear) with a lag time of 10 years.

Careful reading of the book indicates to me that, despite the other reasons he gives, he really objects to wind turbines on esthetic grounds.  This can only be described as bizarre given the scope of the threat he describes.

If he were to say that the magnitude of the threat meant that we needed all solutions (wind, solar and nuclear), I would understand that completely.  I think it's possible that would be an appropriate proposal, though I'm not so enthusiastic about nuclear.

So, yes, I think this contradiction hurts his credibility.  He seems to be willing to allow wishful thinking to override a sensible analysis of the situation.