Yeah, let's build a few more of those and drive up the price of natural gas even further and faster.
to a 30 MW wind facility where the 30 MW wind site sits on 70 acres of ridgeline. Sheesh - it doesn't make sense.
That depends on which ridgeline you're talking about, doesn't it? It may not make sense in a populated area but, out here in rural Iowa, the turbines bother no one but the most extreme naturalists.
MidAmerican Energy is getting ready to build another 310 MW farm, and the land "used" is negligible and scattered (not a contiguous plot). No one will miss a few stalks of corn here and there.
This is easy to decide. The question is settled by economics. (Yes, ambience must be quantized to do this.)
I read about a school where a wind generator was put up to test the cost effectiveness of the idea. The generator runs the school power when its windy enough. So far, I believe the data shows the school at least breaking even on the cost. They still need to stay on the grid though, as the wind does not blow all the time.
So the question is, you are a power company engineer. You do the math, do you put up a field of wind machines, or do you put in a gas fired generator, do you even consider (gasp) nuclear power? When this math is done, there may well be places where land is cheap enough to generate power with a wind farm. It will not make sense in other places. But let the power engineers make the call.
As far as birds getting chopped, I believe they will adapt. or screens can be put up, at increased cost to the wind farm. As far as putting one out to sea, the costs of installation must be very high. I can't see this being ecomomic, but I have not seen the numbers.