> And the paper is proposing to cover almost 100 TIMES! the land area of the interstate system with wind farms. That wasn't a proposal, it was a "what if" scen

> And the paper is proposing to cover almost 100 TIMES! the land area of the interstate system with wind farms. That wasn't a proposal, it was a "what if" scenario. Plausible in the sense that it would be highly implausible to see even more wind installations than that. By the way, it does not seem quite as daunting if you factor in the very different densities of highway systems and wind farms: individual turbines are typically spaced about 10 rotor diameters apart (some studies say 15 would be most efficient), and with rotor diameters having passed 100m long ago, creeping up to a 1/10th mile, that leaves us with about a mile between turbines (assuming that rotor sizes increase is slowing down). With your generous 1/10th mile wide highway width assumption, area equivalence would be at one turbine each ten miles, 100 times area equivalence would be one turbine for every 1/10th mile of interstate. That would be definitely huge and nothing you could build in a singular focused effort, but it sounds far less inconceivable than the initial "100 times the interstate".