Resources are also construction material, that’s where wind get its bad ratio.
The only meaningful comparison is material used vs solar. Once these things are built they use near zero resources. For everything else you have to keep mining shitloads of material forever.
How much coal do we have to mine for coal plants? How many gas wells and pipelines for gas plants? What about transport? How much does it take to mine and process all the uranium into fissile isotopes for nuclear?
With wind and solar you plop the thing in a field and get years, maybe decades of energy with no input.
I'm convinced that all these land use and building materials costs studies are just FUD funded by the fossil fuel industry.
Coal and gas plants use many times their weight in materials for a lifetime of operation. Nuclear probably does too because the massive waste involve in uranium refining.
What do you suggest as a greener power source than wind?
Unlike solar?
A coal plant is a 1000MW machinery. A wind turbine is in the order of 10MW. Also, turbines have a very low capacity factor so you have to double them to guarantee their output and combine them with storage. So it's 1 coal plant vs 200 turbines at the very least.
And have you been close to a big coal plant? They're massive. A coal plant probably used more land than 200 turbines and unlike turbines the land is unusable.
Coal plants use many times their mass in coal during their lifetime. If you're looking at total materials needed over the lifetime of the plant, I wouldn't be surprised if coal was 100X higher than 200 turbines.