Post-normal science (PNS) has long advocated the inclusion of stakeholders in scientific processes where there is uncertainty, urgency and high stakes. Increasingly, however, such conditions have become recognised as the norm. Using the theoretical perspective of PNS, we examine the interactions between public objection, unstable coalition politics and uncertain environmental assessment knowledge to understand the case study of a Danish near-shore wind farm tender. In this case the original distinction made by PNS between facts, judgements, politics and science are confirmed as difficult to separate in what has been described as a condition of post-normal politics. The case, taking place within Denmark's relatively transparent and inclusive wind power governance system, offers insights into the challenges of managing long-term environmental and energy policy objectives. However the case also demonstrates the challenges to the policy prescriptions of PNS, specifically regarding the notion of extended peer review communities (EPCs). Here we propose that the de facto condition for energy siting controversies is one of multiple, often self-organised EPCs.