I thought something was awry with your link until I realized that from overhead they’re basically invisible; that’s how efficiently the land is also being used for farming. Point well made.
The pads used for the turbines are quite large, they require an access road, power connections, and the turbines create substantial shade, reducing the productivity of the ground below.
All of that is practically a rounding error compared to the actual area used for crops. Seriously, look at any satellite image of a wind farm in Iowa. Swamped by 2 or 3 years of annual crop yield growth: https://ourworldindata.org/exports/average-corn-yields-in-th...
Did you know farmers in Iowa cut down trees around their fields to minimize shade? The graph you provided is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Corn yield growth is resultant from political decisions to fund biofuels.
The yield increases have mainly come from two sources: increased use of chemicals for pest control and fertilizer, and genetic engineering. Both of those are problematic, with consequences only now slowly dawning on most people, and heavy resistance by the industry to any naysaying in public places.
One day, we may recognize the problem and pass laws to limit or prohibit the use of chemicals. (I think the horse is out of the barn on genetic modification.) That will mean lower yields. Further, if California's droughts continue, the Midwest may need to start growing a greater variety of crops beyond corn and soybeans. There is no other place in the U.S. with soil as potentially productive and useful. Wasting it on wind farms when literally any other place will have less potential impact on agriculture is ridiculous.
Each turbine consumes a minimum of one acre of farmland, and should be offset by at least a half mile from any homes. The problem there is that there are often homes every mile in rural Iowa.
