Enemies of Energy: Saving the Earth

Editor’s note: The following is an excerpt from the “Myths and Misconceptions” section of Enemies of Energy, a research report created for the Capital Research Center. The page for the full report is here: Enemies of Energy.

***

Real estate is the shrewdest investment, according to the old adage, because “they’re not making more of it!”

Policy changes can and have led to the creation of more bald eagles, wolves, whales, and other flora and fauna. But no policy can create more mountains and shorelines. At the most basic level, the land, skies, and waterways are our environment, and what we have is all we have. Those who claim to be conservationists should aim to conserve as much of what we cannot replace as possible.

Most studies on the subject have concluded that wind and solar energy systems are wasteful consumers of real estate. That makes them enemies of conservationists.

For example, a 2020 report on from the Brookings Institution, a DC think tank that excels at confirming the conventional wisdom of the center-left political establishment, reached this conclusion: ^[i]

Wind and solar generation require at least 10 times as much land per unit of power produced than coal- or natural gas-fired power plants, including land disturbed to produce and transport the fossil fuels. Additionally, wind and solar generation are located where the resource availability is best instead of where is most convenient for people and infrastructure, since their “fuel” can’t be transported like fossil fuels. Siting of wind facilities is especially challenging. Modern wind turbines are huge; most new turbines being installed in the United States today are the height of a 35-story building. Wind resources are best in open plains and on ridgetops, locations where the turbines can be seen for long distances. [emphasis added] ^[ii]

However accidentally, even the anti-energy NGOs admit that wind turbines and solar panels block pretty views. The Natural Resources Defense Council’s web page for “Renewable Energy” features an infamous photo of a previously green mountain range in China that is now buried under solar panels.^[iii]

Power stations running on hydrocarbon and nuclear fuel need not be placed in these pretty places, and they fill up far less land in the places where they are needed. The Brookings estimate that wind and solar “require at least 10 times as much land per unit of power produced than coal- or natural gas-fired power plants” is very conservative. Other analysts have come up with far worse land use comparisons.

An April 2021 study in Bloomberg Green calculated that solar energy needs 140 times the land area to produce the same kilowatts as a natural gas plant, 47 times more than an emissions-free nuclear plant, and nearly 18 times more than a coal-fired power station. The comparisons were even worse for wind: 370 times more land needed than natural gas, 123 times more than nuclear, and 46 times more than coal.^[iv]

Putting this in perspective, the Bloomberg report revealed that a 200-megawatt wind farm would need 19 square miles to do what a natural gas plant can do within the space of just a city block.^[v]

The U.S. Department of Energy reports a similar conclusion regarding nuclear power: ^[vi]

Despite producing massive amounts of carbon-free power, nuclear energy produces more electricity on less land than any other clean-air source.

A typical 1,000-megawatt nuclear facility in the United States needs a little more than 1 square mile to operate. NEI says wind farms require 360 times more land area to produce the same amount of electricity and solar photovoltaic plants require 75 times more space.^[vii]

Using this math, that typical nuclear reactor would fit on a patch of land about the size of a small golf course, while wind turbines would need 360 square miles. Indianapolis, the 15^th largest American city by land area, is just a tiny bit larger: 361.4 square miles. ^[viii]

Full report hyperlinked below:

Endnotes

[i] Goss, Samantha. “Renewables, land use, and local opposition in the United States.” January 2020. Accessed January 20, 2026. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/renewables-land-use-and-local-opposition-in-the-united-states/

[ii] Goss, Samantha. “Renewables, land use, and local opposition in the United States.” January 2020. Accessed January 20, 2026. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/renewables-land-use-and-local-opposition-in-the-united-states/

[iii] “Climate Change | Renewable Energy.” Natural Resources Defense Council. Accessed January 20, 2026. https://www.nrdc.org/issues/renewable-energy

[iv] Merrill, Dave. “The U.S. Will Need a Lot of Land for a Zero-Carbon Economy.” Bloomberg News. April 29, 2021. Accessed January 16, 2026. https://web.archive.org/web/20210430145128/https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-energy-land-use-economy/

[v] Merrill, Dave. “The U.S. Will Need a Lot of Land for a Zero-Carbon Economy.” Bloomberg News. April 29, 2021. Accessed January 16, 2026. https://web.archive.org/web/20210430145128/https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-energy-land-use-economy/

[vi] “3 Reasons Why Nuclear is Clean and Sustainable.” U.S. Department of Energy. March 31, 2021. Accessed January 16, 2026. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-reasons-why-nuclear-clean-and-sustainable

[vii] “3 Reasons Why Nuclear is Clean and Sustainable.” U.S. Department of Energy. March 31, 2021. Accessed January 16, 2026. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-reasons-why-nuclear-clean-and-sustainable

[viii] “Indianapolis Population History 1850 – 2023.” Biggest US Cities. Accessed January 20, 2026.  https://www.biggestuscities.com/city/indianapolis-indiana