Unlike solar power, land use is effectively a non-factor for the price of wind power. The NREL estimates the financing of land area to be less than a third of

Unlike solar power, land use is effectively a non-factor for the price of wind power. The NREL estimates the financing of land area to be less than a third of maintenance[1] and just 16% of operational expenses. That works out to land use being .06 cents per kWh. Also, NB for context that .24 C is fairly small compared to the temperature anomaly as it is currently. The global anomaly is .6-.85 C higher over the year[2], and over the US it's usually around 2 C[3]. Note also that 5-20x more area, as they clarify in the journal, is not really representative; the number of turbines is about the same (unless you are in a very population-dense area like Germany), they just have to be spread much farther apart. For instance you can plop them down on farmland just fine. Computational methods may also help reduce the impact of wind shadows by decreasing "dirty" air, but that's just a band-aid. From what the journal indicates, the limiting factor is energy re-entering from the higher atmosphere. I'm curious how this kind of thing is affected by water vapor. Does it increase or decrease the problem? Are offshore turbines affected the same way? How does farmland play into this, since plants release huge amounts of water into the air via transpiration (a plant's "heart" is effectively driven by evaporation)? Also, I liked their little map[4] of wind(squares)/solar(stars) capacity factors. It's refreshing! One of the most irritating things about power discussions online is the ubiquitous repetition of blatantly wrong statements about capacity factors (power delivered/nameplate capacity). Here's[5][6] the data: Coal: 53.5% capacity factor CC natural gas: 54.8% Nuclear: 92.2% Hydro: 45.2% Wind: 36.7% PV Solar: 27% Solar thermal: 21.8% People are all over the place saying solar has a 10% capacity factor, wind has 20%, nuclear has 98%, coal and hydro have 90%- it's nonsense! Coal is a destabilizing influence on the grid, and wind is practically as good as hydro. When you account for how well solar tracks with daily demand, it's better than hydro. [1]: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/70363.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/70363.pdf [2]: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/... [3]: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-blended-mntp/201806.gif https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-blended-mn... [4]: https://cdn.iopscience.com/images/1748-9326/13/10/104008/Full/erlaae102f6_lr.jpg https://cdn.iopscience.com/images/1748-9326/13/10/104008/Ful... [5]: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_b https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph... [6]: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_a https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...