[sverige]

Why can't we build them nearer to the population centers with high energy demands, then? Why not build them on vacant land near big cities?

There is a lot of prime wind farms land on the hills east and southwest and northwest of the Bay Area. There is a lot of vacant land in the hills above Los Angeles. The Olympic peninsula and western slopes of the Cascades have plenty of room for wind farms to serve Seattle. Same on the east coast: Cape Cod actually had a proposed wind farm that was stopped by the moneyed interests that live there, but that could supply Boston with all the power they need.

What is the answer for not pursuing those areas?

[ceejayoz]

> Same on the east coast: Cape Cod actually had a proposed wind farm that was stopped by the moneyed interests that live there, but that could supply Boston with all the power they need.

This is false, as far as I can tell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Wind

> The project is expected to produce an average of 170 MW of electricity, about 75% of the average electricity demand for Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard, and Nantucket island combined.

Those three areas have ~250,000 people, and are largely residential. Boston has ~685,000, likely with larger per-capita electrical demand due to industry/office space.

[CivBase]

Because that land is more valuable as residential and commercial space and you can't build turbines right next to buildings.

In Iowa, farm land comes right up to the border of urban areas. There is no buffer between them like you're talking about.