Eminent domain is a common tool to solve this, and it is also used for mining. It is however not very popular.
just calling everyone a "NIMBY" is not a valid response to criticism of externalities.
The first video has pretty sound (pardon the pun) methodology.
Findings: Unless you're within 200m of a turbine, the background ambient sounds are louder than the sound of the turbine.
Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Their values and systems of belief/reality-building and trust networks are totally different. Successfully negotiating that doesn't mean "my numbers are more correct" but understanding the different subcultures, what's important to them, and being able to respectfully and empathetically communicate according to their needs, not yours.
My primary reason for sharing it was to avoid other (reasonable) people from walking away with some false belief that there might be something to the noise issue. There isn't anything to it.
I'm not trying to convince this person. However, there might be others who don't have the time to do the research. This comment is for them.
The exact blend depends on the location of course, but any sensible grid will likely include both of them (and mixes of distributed solar, onshore, offshore wind). Generally solar and wind should be about 80% of the generation mix, and the precise balance (after including the cost difference over the next few decades) globally leans towards solar being the dominant of the two in most plans and predictions.
edit: this has now made me wonder if anyone calculates the LCOE of 'optimal' solar/wind mix for the region.
Or are there examples of more intensive uses under wind turbines?
https://talkbusiness.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Wind-Far...
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/07/19/world/windfarms-w...
Just what about these turbines makes farming / ranching more difficult?
People generally like making money with their land, and especially for wind it often doesn't impact the economics of current land use very much. (And even solar isn't necessarily exclusive)
The comparison with rail and highways also isn't very good since for those there are much stricter constraints to cover a useful and practical route in its entirety.
The biggest problem in those situation isn't that the actually land that get used, it is how the farmer get impacted by the rail road being there. If they got a lot of money for those 0.5% with no negative effect then naturally people would have no objection to sell that for huge profits.
I can't speak for your family members or the locations where they are involved, but I do know how much politics there is around where I live. There is a lot of resistance to place wind farms on farm fields, and farmers aren't exactly lining up to rent out their land (or at least not for the price people are willing to pay). Ocean farms are often cited as being easier to build because there is less resistance from land owners and local government.
One land location that does seem a bit easier for wind production are forests in mountain areas which is sparsely populated. The draw side is that the consumers isn't generally located there, so you get the situation where the best and easiest locations to install wind is also the worst location to utilize the production.
(And don't get me started on this, but most arrays are wired stupidly, ignoring what the telegraph and phone guys learned 125 years ago: you want to ground the positive leg, NOT the negative, so you can use cathodic protection via a sacrificial anode to prevent the wires corroding away. You would be shocked how many 10-15 year old arrays I've seen that have something rapidly approaching empty straws of insulation connecting the panels - the breakeven on a solar PV plant is around 20-22 years, so these will never break even!)
Land used for rail and roads is used up. Land used for solar may continue being used for whatever else it was doing already.
Please do not make up BS problems.
Solar and wind can be much more opportunistic in using small packets of land.
Researchers are experimenting with which plants do best under solar panels and even trying to grow tomatoes and potatoes between rows at existing utility-scale farms, Macknick says.
But most crops do not, and benefit both from reduced heat stress and reduced water loss. Livestock, likewise, benefit from shelter, and the grass grows not less, same reasons.
When you have all of cultivated land available to site solar in, you can choose places to put it where it is most beneficial.
Farm and pasture are not the only places that benefit from shade. Reservoirs and canals lose huge amounts of water to evaporation, and need constantly to fight biofouling.
Roofs, too, last longer in shade.
Maybe a specialized tractor could be built to go around the panels but really you’d want to grow laborious crops that are mostly hand-planted/harvested anyway.
On wheat you may not want to collect too much of the light anyway, because yield might suffer.
Corn is a little harder because it grows so tall. You would need high fencerows, or give up collecting much when the crop gets high.
One merit of these systems is that they produce revenue in fallow years and year-round, while the crops only produce revenue in a spike once a year.
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/solar-panels-he...