The Wall Street Journal reprints a short article by William Tucker from The Weekly Standard in which he observes that the problem with alternative energy sources is that they take up too much land. Generally, his observations are accurate enough with respect to biofuel, somewhat less so with solar. I find his arguments unpersuasive with respect to hydroelectric and wind.
Tucker says it would take a wind farm 75 miles square to replace a conventional generating station. I think he overlooks the fact that most of the land under the giant windmills can still be farmed. I suspect that the 750 wind turbines would take up not much more than 5 square miles of that 75 square miles, leaving 70 square miles to grow wheat, corn, or use as pasture.
With respect to hydroelectric taking up pretty canyons, it does do that. However, it turns pretty canyons into pretty mountain lakes, not a bad transformation. I've lived most of my adult life near medium and large hydroelectric projects which are generally viewed by my friends and neighbors as amenities, not detriments. I know that is not the Sierra Club view, just the view of us local folks who boat and fish.
Solar can be installed on roofs and a local brewery has installed solar as shade for its relatively large parking lot. This means that land underneath solar panels is generally in use for something else, although not normally for agriculture which typically requires full sun.
