> 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...