Have you ever been to Iowa? I suspect you haven't. Look at literally any wind farm in Iowa via satellite, and the vast majority of the land is taken up by crops: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2818954,-93.8007446,2829m/da...

I grew up in Iowa. I inherited 160 acres of prime farmland from my grandparents and parents. I actively participated in the successful lobbying of the county commissioners in the county where my property is located to change the offset rules for wind turbines to make life livable for the people directly affected by them. I personally turned down the offer to build turbines on my land.

What skin do you have in the game?

That's astonishing, then, that you weren't aware that wind farms share land with productive farms just fine.

I live on a planet and consume food. My family has rural acreage in Wisconsin, too, but that's irrelevant. Privilege doesn't have to stop the ability to think critically.

That you're lobbying to make wind harder to deploy doesn't give you better moral or intellectual clarity, here...

When you do the research, you discover that wind is not the panacea it has been portrayed to be. Building and placing turbines is not carbon neutral, the cleanup costs of decommissioned turbines are completely ignored because they are 40 years out, and they are not very profitable without subsidies. There are better alternatives that are less destructive to the environment.

This also ignores the other part of my original comment, which was to build turbines nearer to population centers. Why aren't the hills east of Oakland and southwest of SV filled with wind turbines?

Those hills funnel the wind through the Livermore pass, where there have been wind turbines for decades

So all the available land suitable for wind turbines has been used? There's no more capacity?

We need to fire on all cylinders, here, to fight climate change.

And as far as non-wind clean energy, there are literally zero options that are immune to NIMBYism like you're engaged in here. Not hydro, not geothermal, not even solar... And SURE as heck not nuclear.

Svierge: I don't own the land yet (parents are still alive) and no one has approached us, but I absolutely would put wind turbines on it if there was an opportunity. My father and I have regularly discussed putting solar and wind and possibly some form of microhydro on the land at our own expense. We have planted trees on it.

Have you invited the wind farmers to put a turbine on your acreage?

How do turbines affect people living nearby?

> Better to build these things on land with steady wind, less agricultural value and nearer big population centers

I'm sure developers would be happy to if that was the case, but it turns out the valuable locations simply tend to be west central, and the easternmost regions of the mountain states https://windexchange.energy.gov/maps-data/319

> such as Wyoming

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chokecherry_and_Sierra_Madre_W...

> and Colorado

Added a 600MW farm in 2018 (Rush Creek) following a 600MW farm in 2014 (Limon) and a 550MW one in 2011 (Cedar Creek).

> (near the I-25 corridor from Cheyenne to Colorado Springs)

That's a shitty place to put wind turbines: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Colorado...

> or the barren hills on either side of the Bay Area.

You mean like Altamont? And turns out california has pretty poor onshore wind prospects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_California#/medi...

Can't you farm crops under a wind mill farm?

Of course. Not only can you, but it's the most common thing to do under a wind farm in Iowa.

Zoom in to basically any random wind farm in Iowa, and the vast majority of the land area is crops. For instance: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2818954,-93.8007446,2829m/da...

I thought something was awry with your link until I realized that from overhead they’re basically invisible; that’s how efficiently the land is also being used for farming. Point well made.

Seems like it: https://www.awea.org/wind-101/benefits-of-wind/wind-in-my-co...

Maybe a slightly biased source based on the name, but probably roughly right at least.

The pads used for the turbines are quite large, they require an access road, power connections, and the turbines create substantial shade, reducing the productivity of the ground below.

All of that is practically a rounding error compared to the actual area used for crops. Seriously, look at any satellite image of a wind farm in Iowa. Swamped by 2 or 3 years of annual crop yield growth: https://ourworldindata.org/exports/average-corn-yields-in-th...

Did you know farmers in Iowa cut down trees around their fields to minimize shade? The graph you provided is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Corn yield growth is resultant from political decisions to fund biofuels.

Did you look at it? The growth starts around 1940. 2 tons per hectare. Today, over 10 tons per hectare.

A 5x growth in yield over 80 years is due to ethanol political mandates starting around 20 years ago?

The yield increases have mainly come from two sources: increased use of chemicals for pest control and fertilizer, and genetic engineering. Both of those are problematic, with consequences only now slowly dawning on most people, and heavy resistance by the industry to any naysaying in public places.

One day, we may recognize the problem and pass laws to limit or prohibit the use of chemicals. (I think the horse is out of the barn on genetic modification.) That will mean lower yields. Further, if California's droughts continue, the Midwest may need to start growing a greater variety of crops beyond corn and soybeans. There is no other place in the U.S. with soil as potentially productive and useful. Wasting it on wind farms when literally any other place will have less potential impact on agriculture is ridiculous.

That's not the whole story (you should know!). Organic farming has also increased in yield dramatically.

Each turbine consumes a minimum of one acre of farmland, and should be offset by at least a half mile from any homes. The problem there is that there are often homes every mile in rural Iowa.

We need roads to get to farms. We need terraces and irrigation ditches to manage runoff. We have plenty of land that just isn't farmable.

There is plenty of space to put up wind turbines without reducing farm land.

Why can't we build them nearer to the population centers with high energy demands, then? Why not build them on vacant land near big cities?

There is a lot of prime wind farms land on the hills east and southwest and northwest of the Bay Area. There is a lot of vacant land in the hills above Los Angeles. The Olympic peninsula and western slopes of the Cascades have plenty of room for wind farms to serve Seattle. Same on the east coast: Cape Cod actually had a proposed wind farm that was stopped by the moneyed interests that live there, but that could supply Boston with all the power they need.

What is the answer for not pursuing those areas?

> Same on the east coast: Cape Cod actually had a proposed wind farm that was stopped by the moneyed interests that live there, but that could supply Boston with all the power they need.

This is false, as far as I can tell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Wind

> The project is expected to produce an average of 170 MW of electricity, about 75% of the average electricity demand for Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard, and Nantucket island combined.

Those three areas have ~250,000 people, and are largely residential. Boston has ~685,000, likely with larger per-capita electrical demand due to industry/office space.

Because that land is more valuable as residential and commercial space and you can't build turbines right next to buildings.

In Iowa, farm land comes right up to the border of urban areas. There is no buffer between them like you're talking about.