Land Resources for Wind Energy Development Requires Regionalized Characterizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimates of the land area occupied by wind energy differ by orders of magnitude due to data scarcity and inconsistent methodology. We developed a method that combines machine learning-based imagery analysis and geographic information systems and examined the land area of 318 wind farms (15,871 turbines) in the U.S. portion of the Western Interconnection. We found that prior land use and human modification in the project area are critical for land-use efficiency and land transformation of wind projects. Projects developed in areas with little human modification have a land-use efficiency of 63.8 ± 8.9 W/m 2 (mean ±95% confidence interval) and a land transformation of 0.24 ± 0.07 m 2 /MWh, while values for projects in areas with high human modification are 447 ± 49.4 W/m 2 and 0.05 ± 0.01 m 2 /MWh, respectively. We show that land resources for wind can be quantified consistently with our replicable method, a method that obviates >99% of the workload using machine learning. To quantify the peripheral impact of a turbine, buffered geometry can be used as a proxy for measuring land resources and metrics when a large enough impact radius is assumed (e.g., >4 times the rotor diameter). Our analysis provides a necessary first step toward regionalized impact assessment and improved comparisons of energy alternatives.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".