Clayton Rosenberger didn’t want a wind turbine between his corn and soybean fields. But this farmer in McLean County, Illinois (United States) changed his mind after doing the math. The installation occupied around 0.1% of his operation, and the rent more than offset what he would have earned cultivating that land.
His case, reported by Ambrook in January 2025, shows how wind energy can bring in income without displacing most of the farming activity. The nuance matters to understand the story. The comparison refers to the small area of land, not to the earnings of the entire farm.
Rosenberger’s Wind Turbine Figures
| Item | Figure |
|---|---|
| Height with one blade pointing up | About 152 m |
| Foundation depth | About 3.7 m |
| Size of the operation | About 445 ha (about 620 football fields) |
| Land removed from cultivation | About 0.45 ha (around 0.1%) |
| In operation since | Around 2021 |
| Construction duration | About 8 months |
| Average annual payment per farm (USDA, 2011-2020) | $17,303 |
| Land that ceased to be agricultural (2012-2017) | Less than 1% |
A 152-Metre Tower on 0.45 Hectares
The wind turbine rises to roughly 152 meters when one blade is oriented upward. Underground, the concrete foundation extends about 3.7 meters in depth, although a large portion is buried beneath the soil removed during construction.
The operation covers roughly 445 hectares, equivalent to the 1,100 acres cited in the original report. Rosenberger calculated that he would lose about 0.45 hectares of cropland, around 4,500 square meters. That is the proportion that explains his decision. It is the equivalent of about 620 football fields, and the turbine sits on more than half a field’s worth of space.
That land area refers to the space occupied on his farm and should not be confused with the full extent of a wind farm. Turbines require spacing between one another, but the intervening land can continue to be used for farming.
«I don’t have a retirement plan, but now I do»
EDP Renewables owns the turbine and rents the land to the farmer. According to the report, it began operating around 2021 and the payments exceeded the income from the cultivated land that had been taken out of production.
«I don’t have a retirement plan, but now I do,» Rosenberger told Ambrook. His remark sums up what he valued about the deal. In addition to crop money, he had another income stream to plan for the future.
The idea also appears in a testimonial published by EDP with statements gathered in 2022. There he recounted that when opening a bag of seeds, he did not know whether he would recoup the investment. The lease payments offered him greater predictability.
An Average of $17,303 per Farm
The exact amount Rosenberger receives is not stated in the report. That is why general sector figures cannot determine his exact income nor guarantee how much another owner might receive.
A USDA report, published in 2024, analyzed energy payments between 2011 and 2020. In counties with wind production but no oil or gas production, the recipient farms received an average annual payment of $17,303, expressed in 2020 dollars.
It is a historical average per farm, not a per-turbine rate. The study itself notes that location and farm size influence payments.
Eight Months of Construction and the Tractor Around the Base
Before signing, Rosenberger and his wife visited a wind park and parked near a turbine to listen for themselves. The sound seemed less bothersome than they expected.
The construction lasted about eight months and required moving heavy machinery around the farm. Afterward, he was able to continue with farming, adjusting the tractor’s routes around the base. The corn and soybeans remained part of the business.
In the testimony distributed by EDP, he compared that adaptation to working around a stream or power towers. He also attributed to the park’s tax revenues improvements in roads and emergency services for his community.
Less Than 1% of the Land Ceased to be Agricultural
Does farming continue when wind turbines arrive? The USDA studied land-use changes before and after the installations. For turbines installed between 2012 and 2017, less than 1% of previously agricultural land was reclassified as non-agricultural.
The analysis examined the type of land surrounding the towers, so that result does not mean every square meter continued to be cultivated. Foundations, access roads and other facilities occupy land. The distinction helps explain how a wind park can cover a large area while crops continue to grow between turbines.
Noise, Landscape, Wildlife and Drainage
The land area occupied and the money received do not tell the whole story. The USDA also acknowledges possible nuisances from noise, changes in scenery and effects on wildlife. Each site requires its own assessment.
The construction also raises practical issues, such as soil compaction or damage to drainage. According to Ambrook’s report, compensation for crop losses and alterations to activity should be included in the agreements. It is also advisable to know the terms of decommissioning.
The data on agricultural continuity come from USDA ERR-330, published in May 2024. The agency explained its results on September 12, 2024 in an analysis published in Amber Waves, the magazine of its Economic Research Service.
Imagen: EDP Renewables
