Which are almost universally placed in said farm fields, unproductive hillsides, and open ocean. No one's clearing city blocks to place a wind turbine. These "massive wind farm power generation operations" already exist in the middle of Indiana's cornfields. Drive from Chicago to Cincinnati and you'll quickly see how little land they can eat up.
Concrete example: https://www.google.com/maps/place/40%C2%B035'55.2%22N+87%C2%...
> Same logic applies to just laying massive amounts of solar panels over a wide area.
Same response; they only make financial sense to place on low-value land. A solar farm will be very happy on shitty land that's not particularly suitable for farming, grazing, or habitation. They can even benefit farmland in some climates; https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2023/03/made-shade-growing-....
Putting them on peoples roofs is actually a terrible option from a GW/$ equation due to install costs, and lack of operational scale.
You seem to have a funny definition of "empty space" when the post you're replying to explicitly called out the uses for land in between wind turbines or leveraging wind turbines in areas where much of the land isn't usable for much else. If your argument requires completely ignoring points made by someone else, you probably don't have very strong of an argument.
If you just plant a single wind turbine in some unused space of an otherwise productive piece of land you can obviously derive value from it. That's not what I was talking about though. I was talking about massive wind farm power generation operations. There's better uses for that area. Same logic applies to just laying massive amounts of solar panels over a wide area. Better to put them on everyone's roofs.