Sorry, basically everything you write is wrong:
Oh this ought to be good.
Wind farms are now mainly build at sea. They don't have land issues anway as the farmers happily farm on the fields where the wind farms are.
Even if your assertion that wind farms are now mainly built at sea was correct, this poses a problem. How much seacoast is there, and how much transmission loss is there getting it to places with no seacoast?
Also, not every land-bound wind farm is being built on farmland. And when clearing land for wind farm use, they're clearing roughly 5000 sq/m per turbine.
Solar, if it is photovoltaic, is best build in cities anywa, where you again have no land issues. Thermic solar is another thing, though.
Actually PV is best built in areas with maximum days of sun and away from obstructions that might interfere with solar coverage.
That basically means that while it CAN work in cities, cities are sub-optimal. At least for carrier-grade solar installs.
Solar panels don't need rare earthes.
Correction, the bulk of solar panels, which use silicon bases, don't contain rare earths. However, multi-junction cells and some of the highest efficiency cells are built on substrates of rare earths.
Wind generators use them, but would work also without them.
At far lower efficiency or with much greater bulk...
The environmental arguments are moot. Rare earthes are extracted right out of rock or sand and usually mined in deserts. There are no real concerns.
Bullshit. There's a reason rare earth mining in this country is virtually nonexistent. The tailings from such mines tend to be chock full of things like thorium, and uranium. Which are classified as nuclear waste and are regulated far differently (and more expensively) in the US. You can't just leave the stuff lying around in a pile.
Your claim China is worth than USA, is wrong. China is building up strong regulations, since years. However they suffer from the lack of those during the recent years.
You apparently missed the entire last couple decades. China basically crashed the rare earths market by severely undercutting EVERYONE, simply by having no (or next to no) environmental regulation. They were basically open strip-mining and doing dig-and-dump.
A rare earth mine in the USA would look exactly like one in China. A big pit in a huge rock or desert.
Except the waste from the mine would be controlled differently.
Burning Biomass is not problematic because of green house gas issues, You are an idiot. If it is rotting it produces CO2 and CH4, a far stronger green house gas than CO2. Bottom line it is climat neutral if you burn it, as it wiuld rott otherwise anyway. Or more prcisely, because of avoiding the release of CH4 into the atmosphere it is even an advantage.
Ah. So we get into name calling.
Burning Biomass for power is less of a problem than just open-burning the waste. But it's still being put back up into the atmosphere at a greater rate than allowing it to decay normally. Remember, sequestration isn't about permanent removal of these substances from the environment, it's about how long it's kept out as well.
The amount of energy we produce with biomass is big enough that it is a majour player in the balancing power market.
It's roughly 43% of the energy delivered by renewable sources.
Renewable energy accounts for roughly 7% of total power generation in this country.
So, biomass (both wood and fuels) accounts for a whopping 3% of total energy produced.
Hydro power, which is past its peak in the US, generates twice that.
Nuclear generates 7x what biomass does. With 100 individual reactors spread across 30 states in 60 individual plants,
Coal generates 11x what biomass does..
So your idea of a "major player" and mine are somewhat different.
Even if you don't believe it: 70% of europes land mass is neither used for housing, roads nor farming. There is plenty of space to build what ever plant you want.
The problem is population distribution. In Europe, population distribution is fairly even throughout. The concentration around cities is higher, but nowhere near the differential you see in the US. Add to that the fact that simply divvying up the land mass the way you have doesn't mean the land left over is actually suitable for building a power plant on.
And in the USA, it is even more land available.
There's more land.
Is it "available"? Maybe?
Is it "suitable" for power infrastructure construction? Who knows?
Will locals or government ALLOW you to build there?
The decision to put in power generation infrastructure is nowhere near as simple as a binary yes/no chart.