The claim that wind turbines require excessive land area due to their low power density is misleading and fails to distinguish between turbines' direct footprint and the total area within wind farms, much of which remains usable for dual purposes. In fact, wind energy is often more land-efficient than traditional fossil fuel energy sources.(1)The direct footprint of wind turbines, which includes the turbine bases and access roads, is relatively small. A report by on Net-Zero America found that to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, the U.S. would need between 0.6 and 2.5 million acres for wind energy.(2) In contrast, natural gas extraction already occupies 4.4 million acres, and oil extraction uses 3.5 million acres. This shows that wind energy requires less land than fossil fuel operations.(2)Critics often exaggerate land use by including the visual footprint—the area from which turbines are visible—but this doesn’t equate to actual land occupation. Lovins highlights this as similar to claiming that lampposts in a parking lot occupy the entire area.(3) In reality, about 98% of the land within wind farms is still available for other uses, such as farming and grazing.(4)

‍