New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Where's the Best Place to Put a Wind Farm?

It's not just where it's windiest, according to new research. David Biello reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

If you want to generate electricity from the sun or wind, it makes sense to go where it's sunniest and windiest. But part of the reason to generate electricity from such renewable resources is to cut back on the pollution that comes from burning fossil fuels. And if you take that into account, the best places change.

Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University totaled up the health and environmental benefits of renewable electricity across the U.S. Such benefits range from decreased respiratory disease thanks to less soot all the way to mitigation of climate change.

And when you consider all those factors, a solar panel in New Jersey delivers more overall benefits than photovoltaics in far sunnier Arizona.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The difference comes down to what the renewable power replaces. For example, a wind turbine in West Virginia that cuts down on coal burning avoids 33 times as much health and environmental damage as would the same wind turbine in California.  The analysis is in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

So where's the best place to put renewable power? According to this study, we need to be building wind farms in Indiana. They'll fit in nicely among the corn.

—David Biello

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe