One of the most repeated arguments when talking about the expansion of renewable energy is the rejection they generate among part of the population. Not because anyone is against clean energy, but because very few people like having a row of wind turbines on the horizon or a field covered in solar panels around the corner. This phenomenon, known as the "NIMBY effect" (Not In My Backyard), has been a frequent obstacle to accelerating the energy transition.
Fortunately, a recent study conducted by scientists at Forschungszentrum Jülich in Germany and published in Nature Communications offers us an optimistic and very practical view: it is possible to install renewable energy while avoiding densely populated areas and particularly beautiful landscapes... without making the process more expensive.
Yes, you read that right: it doesn't have to cost more to avoid the areas where renewable energy installations are most disruptive.
Is it just a question of aesthetics?
To a large extent, yes. Aesthetics, although subjective, has considerable weight in the social acceptance of a project. No one wants a pristine valley or an idyllic beach to be overrun by industrial structures, no matter how environmentally friendly they may be. The same is true in rural areas with high population density, where residents feel that a change in their environment is being imposed on them.
The German study addresses this reality with an innovative approach: combining population density criteria with scenic beauty maps to determine where solar and wind installations can be located with the least visual and social impact.
And most surprisingly, in doing so, the researchers found that there is no significant increase in costs. This is because, even filtering out these sensitive locations, there is still an abundance of technically suitable and economically viable sites.
The key to the study is its simplicity. It doesn't propose revolutionary technology or require multimillion-dollar investments in sophisticated solutions. Simply put, it suggests taking landscape and population density into account when choosing where to install new renewable energy infrastructure.
And the best part: although the study was conducted in Germany, its methodology can be applied anywhere else. All that's needed is for energy and urban planning authorities to be receptive, prioritizing not only the economic performance of projects but also their social acceptance.
And this is very important now, because the energy future is yet to be built. Although we've made great progress in renewables, there's still a long way to go. If we want to achieve global climate goals and guarantee a supply of clean and affordable energy, we'll need to increase current solar and wind energy installations.
The good news is that we don't have to sacrifice our landscapes or our quality of life to achieve this. The German study shows that we can grow without encroaching on sensitive spaces. And that completely changes the narrative.
It's not about choosing between clean energy and natural beauty. We can have both.
All of this highlights an element that is sometimes overlooked in major energy debates: sensitivity. Being sensitive to the environment, the visual heritage, the identity of the territory, and also to the concerns of citizens. Because the energy transition is not just a matter of engineering or economics; it is also a social issue.
Carefully choosing where we locate our renewable facilities can make the difference between a smooth energy transition or one plagued by conflicts and blockages.
This study is not only a breath of fresh air for those who love nature and also support green energy. Above all, it shows that the solution often lies in common sense.
There are thousands of locations available, without the need to clash with the population or ruin the landscape. You just have to know how to choose.
And if we can do things right from the start, why not do it?
EN 
ES