Farmland Owner Encourages People Not to Sign up for Wind Turbines
Welcome to our letters to the editor/opinion section. To submit yours for consideration, please send to [email protected]. Please consider including an image to be used–either a photograph of you or something applicable to the letter. However, an image is not necessary for publication.
Remember opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect that of Redheaded Blackbelt nor have we checked the letters for accuracy.
Wind Turbines [photo by Jeff Kubina from Columbia, Maryland via WikiCommons]
I am a retired neurosurgeon having lived and practiced in Eureka for the last 40 years. For a few years after I retired I owned a Ferndale bottoms dairy which I subsequently sold to my daughter and son-in-law.
I grew up in Northwestern Iowa and still own farmland there; some of which has been in my family for nearly 100 years. There are many wind turbines in Iowa. 25% of Iowa’s electricity is produced by wind turbines. Iowa is the second state after Texas in wind turbine produced electricity and has more wind turbine electric production than California. There are many huge wind turbines all over Northwest Iowa.
In 2015, I was approached by Apex Company to put wind turbines on some of my farm land. The project was known as the Upland Prairie Wind, LLC. It was to produce 300 MW by erecting 130 to 150 wind turbines. They needed to sign up 75 leases in order to get enough wind turbines to make the project viable. Apex opened an office in Royal, Iowa which is in the center of their project area. They talked to me several times and I received a long and complicated lease and multiple brochures about the advantages of me signing and the advantages of wind power in general. I was skeptical and I did not sign a lease. Only 10 people signed the lease. Apex then proposed a new area several miles north and several miles east of Royal. That project obtained enough lease signers and most of the turbines are erected and will start producing electricity soon.
I originally thought putting wind turbines on my farmland was a good idea. I would be paid money for the electricity generated, the people in the area would get reduced electric bills and I would be helping the environment. If I signed the lease, which was about one inch thick and would have had to been reviewed by my lawyers, I would sign over everything needed to put turbines on my land but receive no firm payments or guarantees.
The very pleasant turbine people suggested that I would receive a one-time payment of $2500 for each turbine and a minimum turbine payment of $3500/ MW of the rated nameplate capacity annually for 30 years. They also suggested that the annual turbine lease for 20 years would be $9000 per year with an additional $8000 per year for the electricity generated. They cautioned that the electricity generated and hence the payment might not be that much. The profit to grow corn on one acre of farmland is about $100 to $200 per year. I would be making $17,000 per year from that same acre by generating electricity.
Fortunately only 10 of the 75 needed neighbors signed a lease and so the project was abandoned in my area. The project was moved a few miles north. That project is now near completion and ready to generate electricity.
So how has it turned out? The ratepayers (farm and home electric users) have seen their electric bills increased by 20% to cover the construction costs. About 90% of the farmers that signed up in the newer project wish they had not. The turbine construction company which is not the same as the turbine electric company have not kept many of their promises. The reimbursement is now $11,200 per year per turbine. This is a flat fee for 30 years which apparently does not take into account inflation. There have been many construction problems. Many of the rural roads have been badly damaged by the movement of the turbines and huge cranes necessary to erect them. The county is suing the turbine company for not fulfilling their promise of repairing the roads. When the cranes and turbine parts go on the farmers land, they break much of the underground tile that is necessary for drainage of the farmland. They do not fulfill their promise to repair the tile which markedly reduces the land’s productivity. The small roads on the farmer’s fields are much larger than promised and the huge loads compact the land such that the land’s productivity does not return for many years, if at all. At the end of the 30 year life expectancy of the turbine, the concrete base, which is the size of a small house, must be removed. The removal is supposed to be done by jack hammering the top 10 feet and then replacing that with rich farmland.
Having visited the industrial wind turbine farms in the Palm Springs area, I note that the older turbines are still there and in a state of disrepair. I am skeptical that the turbine company in Iowa will not be bankrupt and will fulfill their promise of restoring the land to its former state.
I am very glad that I did not sign up for wind turbines in Iowa and would encourage people in this area not to sign up for wind turbines here.
Denver Nelson
Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules
Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/
It would be interesting to see comparisons of Apex companies plans and Terragens. Sounds like a good thing you were not part of the Iowa project. Still, congratulations to Iowa for generating 25% of their power from the wind!
With all the problems, destruction of the environment, lies and broken promises… this is very twisted non-rational thinking! Destruction for 25% electric production is typical idiotic liberal thought processes!
How about the thousands of birds turbines kill?
You’ve been misled 25% of win is going to electric no that’s wrong.
🕯🌳I do agree that the project needs proper vetting before consideration.
A friend of mine has wind turbines on her ranch in West Texas. She said that on her ranch and others’ nearby ranches the builders would drive through the fences rather than go through the gates, leaving a huge mess and danger to the cattle. No apologies and no help with repairing the fences. When they called the number they had been given for support they never reached a person and never received a call back. All the neighbors are frustrated and angry with the company they have the contract with and the company that builds the turbines.
Wow, that’s a lot of valid points to be aware of. Thank you Denver.
Good information – thank you.
None of those concerns really sound like they’d make a difference to me. 11,000 per year vs 100-200 for growing corn, no contest. You’d be dumping less fertilizer and pesticides into the soil and saving literally tons of water to boot!
How you going to grow food, stupid.
Trump Rules 2020!! [edit]
Yet another brilliant comment by one of the stable geniuses who watch fox news and elected a criminal lying fascist Russian puppet into office… wonderful thoughts there bubba, I use wind power to help grow my crops, and they grow well around the tower.
Is everything in your life political? MAGA
those dead birds make good fertilizer
Awesome reply.
The turbines kill birds, earthworms (very good for the soil) any living creature around them leave or die. Even people have had to move (my husband & I included) turbines leak oil, turbines only have a life span of approx 10 years. And when the wind company leaves or declare bankruptcy- the land owner who signed the lease is responsible for them and to dismantle and take to the scrap yard is going to cost u more than what they paid u to have them on your property
I am sad you had to find this out first hand….. The hard truth.
Good on you Denver. So often we are sold a bill of goods that does not look like the end product . Kind of like buying a Prius. Looks good until you look under the hood at the impacts to the third world countries and the battery production. I would love to believe in solar and wind but I am afraid the impacts would have to be ignored for me to totally buy in.
Maybe these types of power generation can work out eventually but as more of these shenanigans get revealed it will radically undermine the trust.
From what ive seen in past encounters are those wind and solar leases are not written by any means in favor of the landowner. And at the end of the lease the landowner is left to clean up tons of concrete and infrastructure, especially when xyz company disolves their LLC. Id be amazed if Humboldt goes for it. Getting a Costco was nothing less than a miracle. Lol
I was at the Ferndale meeting last week. From the presentation, there are only two land owners for this project, both big companies with good legal counsel I would think and they are of course for it to happen.
As to the orphaned wind machines, Terra Gen is posting a bond so that if they are not in business in 30 years ( design life of the project), there is money to decommission the project without public money being required.
I’m for it.
The idea that an incorporated company writes these standard contract forms for their own advantage without specific details about what they promise, most likely self funds the bonds based on a promise to pay because that is a cheap way to meet sketchy government requirements and it’s likely that a long, expensive and ugly law suit will be required to get anything out of them if they declare bankruptcy (and they will ensure there are few left over assets in that case), and they can sell these contracts if they choose, faith is certainly what is needed.
Usually the money set aside to decomission the turbines is much less than is needed. The wind companies make everything sound good.
The city I grew up in has a municipal lighting plant. electricity is produced by the city (coal burning), sold to residents at a low price, and creates revenue by selling to other cities/towns. Along with this, working for the lighting plant has been a very sought after job. power outages are few and far between, quickly repaired when it goes down. Mind you, it’s a small city of 65,000 or so, and it’s not rural, but it’s pretty bad ass.
I mention this because I wonder what the return to the public will be if wind turbines were built? Would residents of Humboldt be getting cheaper electricity? Would PGE be making more off of us?
Re-powering those sites with derelict turbines and reliable winds should be prioritized over desecrating a spectacular landscape with an industrial power plant, even if it is wind.
Wind works, is clean and profitable. Crops do grow around them too so double production. I personally believe that the government should be responsible for the energy infrastructure so no matter if a company goes belly up the sites are maintained. Every bit of negativity facing clean energy comes from corporate propoganda pushed by unscrupulous media platforms like Fox News. Please research anything of such importance instead of letting the media program you.
If you think it’s clean look up Baotou Mongolia, I probably spelled it wrong but google will figure it out. You want to put the people that can’t make our roads in charge of our power also. Good luck with that one buddy, there won’t be a week that goes by that they won’t try to pass another tax to keep your lights on. Not every bit of negativity comes from Fox News a lot comes from investors that can actually run a calculator and have decided that without subsides it doesn’t make financial sense. If you round to the nearest number, Zero percent of the worlds energy comes from wind. It’s not a big conspiracy it’s just one of the worst ways of producing the energy for the worlds needs. If you want efficient and as close to green and actually productive go nuclear. And last I don’t know why I even bother because I’ve found that anyone blaming Fox News is the exact same as someone blaming CNN, you can’t fill a glass that is already full.
“Wind works, is clean and profitable. Crops do grow around them too so double production.”
No. No, no and no.
From where do you get this hypothesis?
YOU need to do the research, like you said, on “anything of such importance instead of letting the media program you.”
These industrial wind turbines have some serious issues that are being downplayed by the industry. 2-15-17
Brown County Board of Supervisor meeting
Comments from the Public
Chairman Moynihan:
Dr. Coussons, please state your name and address for the record please.
Dr. Coussons:
Herb Coussons, 6649 Ledgetop Drive in Greenleaf.
So a little bit of background and why I’m here to speak. I’ve been in practice in Green Bay since 2002. I’m originally from Louisiana and finished medical school in 1992 so I’ve been in practice for 25 years, mostly in primary care. Prior to coming here I practiced in the Pacific Northwest, I was on the faculty of the University of Idaho and Washington State. I’m on the faculty of the new medical college here in Green Bay, at the Medical College of Wisconsin.
I’m also a private pilot and I was a pilot since 1992 and have gone through all of the ratings all the way through airline pilot and have a particular interest in the physiology and science behind spacial disorientation. I also teach and consult around the United States.
I also would like to state that I have no conflicts of interest, no financial disclosures. I’m not paid to be here and I’m not here to represent anybody.
I also would like to say, since this is on wind energy and it is a controversial topic, I am very pro-American energy, whether that’s carbon or green, it doesn’t really matter, but I have some particular opinions about this topic. And I am presenting because I think that there is some overwhelming science behind the link to health issues, particularly in our local area with Shirley and even further south, Fond du Lac, but as it applies to this Board, Shirley, with the complaints that have come from south Brown County, and I have personally seen and taken care of six of these patients.
So I would like to point out the difference between a syndrome and a disease (you can follow along if you want to), but a syndrome is just a group of symptoms with no seemingly cohesive thing that draws them together or explanation for why they occur together. And this is where there is a lot of misunderstanding when wind turbine syndrome gets thrown around.
Well, I would like to point out that now I think it is a recognized disease, where a disease is a specific disorder with a pathologic or physiologic explanation. So now we classify this as vibro-acoustic disease, and last year with the new CMS guidelines encoding, there is a new code T 75.2 which is the effects of vibration and there is a specific code now listed, vertigo from infrasound. It is a diagnosis and it is a disease.
I printed some abstracts for you and the most, I think, telling one is about vibroacoustic disease. And vibro-acoustic disease has now been autopsy-proven to show soft tissue proliferation, particularly collagen and fibro-elastic tissue that causes heart problems, hypertension, and other physiologic proven findings. This is not isolated to wind turbines. This is in any instance of prolonged exposure to lowfrequency noise, infrasound as we call it. And it applies in aeronautics too, from low frequency noise, that’s how I came upon these studies. It causes thickening of cardiovascular structures and potentially early death. There’ve even been some links to chromosomal damage and increased malignancies in these patients. And I would grant that there is an inadequacy of studies linking this to wind noise but without a doubt the frequency ranges that affect these individuals in both human and animal studies are the same frequencies that have been measured in the Shirley project.
The second one shows what those frequencies are, 0-20 Hz range. Low frequency, infrasound, ILFN, all the same thing. And I won’t get into the details there. You can read it and I can email you a copy of this if you would like it. But it is echocardiography, brain MRI, and histologically proven in autopsies of both animals and humans.
Other supporting evidence: sleep disturbance alone is enough to cause health problems. That’s why we have CPAP to treat sleep apnea patients, because they develop obesity, hypertension, right-sided heart failure, as well as other psychologic issues.
The next one, the theory to explain some physiologic effects of infrasonic emissions at some wind farm sites, includes measurements in our own back yard in the Shirley project because it’s been one of the most studied around.
The next one was published in Canada and I would point to the conclusion of the study. Now that so many indicators point to infrasound as a potential agent of adverse health effects it is critical to re-examine the approach to this aspect of wind turbine operation, revise regulations immediately and implement protective public health measures based on a precautionary principle.
So, epidemiology. This gets pushed out there quite a bit. Why are there no epidemiologic studies, or we need to have more studies is the conclusion of every study.
So, first of all, the FDA is responsible for safety and effectiveness of health altering devices. That could be a surgical device, a drug, or anything like that, whereas OSHA is responsible for things that are environmental, that people may be exposed to. So there is a little bit of a conflict or struggle at a federal level between the FDA and OSHA.
Next is, there are things called IRB’s, institutional review boards. So, medical research was unethical prior to the implementation of restrictions on human subject protections. There are animal studies, there are models, and there are other types of studies, but it is very difficult in any circumstances to point to a direct causal effect, or anything causing any disease, and I’m going to point that out in a subsequent slide.
So what study designs do we have? Case reports – somebody says, this bothers me. Next, cross sectional surveys – we’re going to go out and survey lots of people in an area. Next, we’re going to say, case controlled studies – we’re going to measure affected vs non-affected individuals. Cohort studies – groups of individuals against groups of individuals, maybe even in different neighborhoods or different states. Next would be a randomized control trial and then a meta analysis which is pooled groups of studies to get substantial numbers to prove a point when small numbers don’t prove a point.
Well, what do we have with wind? We have case reports, cross sectional surveys, case control studies, cohort studies including crossover, but we have no randomized control trials. What’s interesting is the wind industry also has no randomized control trials that are independent, not industry funded, and that are peer-reviewed. So, those types of things that claim safety, there’s just as much lack of evidence to stand on that claim as they say that the opposition, people who suffer adverse health effects have.
We will never actually see a randomize control study for wind. The reason why is there are ethical concerns with these studies. There’s enough out there to say that there are potential adverse health effects. There will never be a study. What would be an example of this? An example would be, and I printed something from a nephrology journal, that shows why there are no randomized control studies in some disease states, and the example is smoking. There are no randomized control studies that say that smoking causes adverse health effects, none, zero. But, we warn people, we tax them, there are lawsuits against them, there’s plenty of information and it’s commonly accepted that there is a causal link between smoking and lung cancer.
So in summary, I think we now have three decades of reports of adverse health effects, research has shown that infrasound and low frequency noise cause disturbances both in sleep and in physiologic direct link causal effects, the range of low frequency noise that’s been proven to cause these are measured in the wind turbine developments, vibro-acoustic disease is now a proven entity, and over 90 worldwide professionals and medical researchers that aren’t linked to any type of industry conflict would agree to that and have signed onto that statement. And now Shirley Wind is one of the most studied and documented industrial wind turbine developments in the United States and we have those affected individuals that we see in our own backyard.
So the conclusion, I am concerned, based on the patients that I’ve seen, that our local residents are being harmed by a very real risk of low frequency noise, some of which may not be seen or known for a decade or years to come. An example of this would be sun. It’s a wave form of energy and no one would disagree that UV light or infrared energy affects different people in different ways. I’m much more likely to burn than some of you in the room because I’m quite pale. So, there are people who are more susceptible, but that doesn’t deny the fact that they are affected. And I’m concerned also that with the evidence in our local backyard that the Board and the County will be at risk for both liability and negligence with the amount of information that’s been presented here over the last five years.
That’s about fifteen minutes of time and I would be open for questions or discussion to clarify any points because I breezed through that pretty quickly.
how many endangered birds are here ? what of them ? over 3 million birds die from wind turbines every year . also speaking of a 30 year life cycle… has anyone seen anyone be able to grow a crop on land that was formerly a wind farm ? the oils these things leak ….. and while we are talking about oil…. composites are just that oil which they use to build these monsters and oil is used to transport those raw materials to the shops where oil is used to make the parts that oil ships to the land where oil is used to assemble them. all that oil used and these are supposedly better ? oh wait how much oil will be used to tear them down. how much to haul the junk what land fill will they end up in and at what price to the water the earth…. and then what do we the people get from having the landscape scared and skyline changed forever. how much do we get for the last song from the bird ?
Very poetic, if entirely misleading.
More birds die from window strikes on buildings and cats than from wind farms. Wind farm kills does even make the top 10 list unless you include Transmission line kills, which all power generation uses.
Sure, lots of oil is currently used to build, move and erect the towers. We’re forced to use oil because there currently is no alternative. So you’re using the lack of alternatives to justify removing alternatives to carbon based power generation? Great logic there.
People grow crops around the bases of these towers. They have very similar footprints to oil wells, and use very similar size and weight machinery to build. So whether you’re building an oil well or a wind tower, you’re damaging the land about the same. Except wind power doesn’t have the potential to kill all life in a half mile radius if the H2S levels in the crude are high enough. And modern wind projects are required to post a bond with enough funds to decommission the project after its life span, before the project starts. How many orphaned oil wells are still polluting the land decades after their owners went belly up after a drop in oil prices?
That more damage is done by other things is no free pass to add more to the problem. For starts, different species are killed by wind turbines that windows and cats.
There are rural people all over the world who were sold on these industrial wind turbines and are now vehemently opposed to them after having to live with them in and around their communities. The health effects from the ultra-low frequency sound energy that they produce is causing people to abandon their homes, their properties are now worthless. The industry/government cover-up is wearing thin as more and more studies by unbiased and unbought individuals prove again what was proven by NASA back in the 1980’s. Billions of dollars have been invested and now the bad news is out. No one should live within 20 miles of a large industrial wind turbine. One of the many good websites is FriendsAgainstWind, google it and do some homework before they ruin the beauty and health of Humboldt. Write letters by this June 14th to: “Humboldt Wind Project Planner, County of Humboldt, Planning and Building Department, 3015 H St., Eureka, CA 95501 or emailed to [email protected].” and tell them absolutely it is a bad idea.
Google ‘turbines on fire’ and then decide if they should be in the windiest spot in Humboldt in areas designated as hazardous or extremely hazardous for fire danger. According to the University of California our forests in Humboldt are the most carbon dense in the USA. We are sequestering carbon at a high rate. Unless we burn them down. Write letters by this June 14th to: “Humboldt Wind Project Planner, County of Humboldt, Planning and Building Department, 3015 H St., Eureka, CA 95501 or emailed to [email protected].” and tell them absolutely it is a bad idea.
I grew up in Humboldt and hope they never get turbines there! We moved from DesMoines 13 years ago to and acreage , to get back to the peace and quiet and have that country view and life we missed. The turbines have been up around us less than a year. It is one of the most disappointing things to happen in my life. The noise is worse than we thought. There is no direction to look without seeing many turbines. We are paying attention to any change in animals, both our own and wildlife. Before anyone gets talked into allowing this to happen, I encourage all to do the research and talk to people that have to live around them.
Yeah, the question is, will these windmills run? Will they be stopped where only a few get to run at a time due to lawsuits by animal rights activists? Like they windmills in Livermore, CA.
Will these new windmills falter in a few years, like to ones already in the Ferndale valley, which are not producing a spark of electricity at this time. The company responsible for those windmills abandoned the farmers who elected to put them up. Cheap parts were used, and they just broke down within five years. They were absolute junk.
Yay, for cheap, renewable energy, but if the installation and operation causes more headaches and environmental problems than the electrical output’s benefits, then they’re just not worth it, yet. I hope those buyers know what they’re getting in to!
I once thought wind power was part of the solution. Now I believe it is preventing us from implementing real solutions. Please read and then tell Humboldt county we should not allow this project to go forward. Thank you. http://en.friends-against-wind.org/health/three-decades-of-wind-industry-deception
The turbines in No. Wisconsin, on Lake Michigan, where it blows constantly, have been taken down. Removed after less than twenty five years, even with constant turn, the cost of maintaining them was less than output. Though not admitted by Wis. Public Service, all those years, when it came time to renew leases , none were.
Who do you think ultimately paid for that debacle?
In 2017, 254 TWh ( terra watt hours, which is billion watt hrs) were produced by wind ( 6.33% us total electrical production), 2018 66 TWh by solar ( 1.66% total us production)
As to here, Humboldt gets about 50% from the Humboldt bay generating station, producing 384,787 MWh ( mega watt hours)
It took about 3.356 billion cubic feet of natural gas to power it. Producing 392 million pounds of carbon.
The gas comes from someone else’s back yard, their cherished view shed, along pipelines through someone else’s back yard to get to here so we can use it. Is that correct? Should we think that we can damage other peoples lands to our advantage and along the way pollute all of our air and destroy the planet?
We are in the 13th hour of climate change. It is here, we have no time left. None. The IPCC report was very clear, 12 years to fix it. I don’t want to be the one to have to explain why I didn’t do more to the youth of tomorrow. NIMBY is done.
thing is, wind is not green. how many metric tons of carbon is use to build and install these wind machines ? and then to keep them running ? compared to how much engery they produce . does it truely off set in anyway when you count the loss of habitat and wildlife surrounding them ? what is the total green house gas cost per wind turbine,from the mining of raw materials to end of life cycle ? and how does that compare to other types of engery production ? remember natural gas is a by product that is often flared off from oil production . so it is a by product that has been harnessed to provide power verses just burned off and wasted. so that in its self seems to be a bennifit in my minds eye. since it is already a greener form of engery as it is a by product after all ,the only real extra carbon cost is the transportation and storage of such gas.
Oh dear! Just 12 years? Bullshit. I have heard this crap since the mid 1960’s. Really? America produces a lot less that other countries, like China and India. I, along with most other Americans, do not give a shit, nor do we believe you or others like AOC, just tax scams to cost us money for their bullshit. Children of these people, do not let them fool you, you grow up to be good consumers of all that is fun, pickups, jet skis and ski boats, motorcycles, all the toys. Those who don’t like it, too bad. We have had to deal with your junk for too long. Q17
“We dump less poison into the air we breathe than China or India, so we should be allowed to continue doing it for all eternity! ‘Murica!”
Terra is trillion. Kilo 1000, mega 1,000,000, giga 1,000,000,000, Terra 1,000,000,000,000.
Not the same company, project or landowners. Comparing our proposed project here in Humboldt to the project in Iowa is like comparing apples and to twinkies. Remember, the largest portion of our proposed project here is on land owned by billionaires. They have their own rules and contracts and are not influenced by the money. Another issue is, how are we going to address energy infrastructure being decommissioned without new proposed energy sources, the new mandated Climate Action plan for our cities and counties and the need for energy resources for adaptation to population growth. I encourage everyone to weigh the actual pros and cons of our proposed project with facts.
Thanks
Billionaires aren’t influenced by money? That’s a good one, don’t let their team of accountants or board of directors hear that.
It’s called cutting back!
Expand and CONTRACT.
Hard to tell someone with a spending disorder to cut back, especially when that happens to be government. People will soon be given ration cards, and the clean cities initiatives will mandate people simply use less.
Kind of flies in the face of our capitalist nature, but soon enough, we will all be faced with our realities and living for much less.
Remember those starving kids from Africa we were asked to sponsor 25 years ago? Well now, those same Africans are sent a picture of a western family with a request that they send money so they can continue to live beyond their means.
RIDICULOUS.
This is a topic that has concerned me for many years now. Many people are concerned about the environment today and want to do their part to make a difference; which is a very good thing. However there are people that put profit over what’s best for the planet. Also there are waves of people that follow what is popular.
One basic principle of electricity/energy is that no matter the form of measurement, it takes the same amount of energy to move an electric motor. For example a DC refrigerator uses just as much as a AC refrigerator. The only difference is that if your has a DC system and a DC refrigerator, there is no conversion in current needed. Where as if you have an AC system with a AC refrigerator, then the AC current is converted by the refrigerator to DC for operation. Another example is that you can not add a micro hydro turbine to a water line and produce extra power, because the power created bye the turbine, was used bye the water pump. Its an equal exchange. Same concept of charging a battery with a battery charger. Its a transfer of energy, no energy is created.
The point that I make here. Is that wind farms take wind current that is used to push weather, ocean currents, and climate temperature, is converted into electricity for profit, while taking energy the planet needs for its cycles of nature, which creates more harm than good.
To put up a couple of small wind turbines to assist with power production for a off grid homestead is ine thing, but to create wind mill farms is a disaster waiting to happen.
I’ve lived off grid for many years now in Hawaii, and have built my own power grid using solar. With a wind and hydro system to follow with-in the year. It has been an incredible journey becoming my own electric and water company on our farm With an incredible understanding of energy usage.
I am happy that you did not end up on the end of regret with a huge wind turbine on your land, and good looking out to trust that gut feeling/intuition.
I also appreciate your article to help bring awareness to others based on your experience.
Best of luck to you, and hope others will open their eyes to what is really going on.
so you are saying i should put wind generators on my prius to create less energy while i drive? basically (bell) tit for tat, and if you know where i can trade the latter for the first please let me know, i have plenty of tat
Solution is to require the project developer/owner to post an LC in the amount of the estimated removal costs.
At the Ferndale meeting terragen said they are placing a bond for removal at the end of the 30 yr project life. If they are not in biz.
Very educational post and comments! It’s important to look more deeply at this and almost any other issue, before making consequential decisions.
Of all the damning things shared, I am most moved by Stephanie’s comment about the loss of ‘peace and quiet’. That is an environment that is harder and harder to find these days.
Of all the many things I love about living ‘in the hills’, and near the end of a road, is the QUIET! It soothes me like nothing else does.
And yes, Stephanie. The one person I know who chose to have a (home use size) wind turbine put on her lot complained about the constant noise.
Farmers are smart people and have utilized wind power in one form or another since wind started blowing over croplands. You don’t have to participate in industrial wind power to seek and utilize the benefits of adding wind power to your farm’s positive ledger. There are always going to be good actors and greedy actors in any negotiated agreement. If you know what protections you need, and want, are, make them known. If the provider isn’t willing to accede to your demands, don’t sign a contract with them. In general wind power isn’t your enemy, but the people trying to make the most profitable deal for themselves very may well be your worst nightmare. Make sure you are aiming your shots at your actual enemies (in general this is greedy corporations, not environmentalists or those trying to make the world a better place for all people).
Hard to sort who will be bad in the future from those who will be good. The good who prevent evil are never noticed and the bad are often noticed too late.
A few fun facts:
The EIA says, 67% of US gas is from fracking, and the % is rising.
Carbon payback is about 6-8 months for a multi MW wind machine. https://www.saskwind.ca/blogbackend/2016/1/14/carbon-and-energy-payback-of-a-wind-turbine
Solar payback is longer, about 2-4 years.
https://www.yellowlite.com/blog/post/solar-systems-energy-payback-time-myth-busted/
Let’s see some studies with data from source other than companies selling their product.
Here is a report from ScienceDaily
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140616093317.htmHere is the report from Science Daily
Rooftop solar won’t kill off the wildlife, it isn’t an acoustic weapon used to drive rural folks off their land, It doesn’t throw fireballs into tinder dry wild lands up on remote windswept ridges, it doesn’t need billions in subsidies to justify it’s existence, and best of all after it is paid off you don’t have a monthly electric bill.
[…] Farmland Owner (& MD) Encourages People NOT to Lease Wind Turbines […]
[…] Farmland Owner (& MD) Encourages People NOT to Lease Wind Turbines […]
my dad signed an oil and gas lease in the 60s for one year for the piddly sum of 1000 bucks. payable 1/2 up front and 1/2 at the end of the year. They promised we wouldn’t even notice them, they would clean up everything, it is in the lease contract. bulletproof right? wrong. They came on the land, made roads to the middle of our fields, drilled and spread gravel and silt thick over a space of 30′. (found nothing) They left the mess and when dad complained of the huge mess left behind, he got a disconnected phone number. They went belly up. no one left to sue. no second 1/2 of the lease payment, no cleaning the fields. We had to use a hay wagon and dig the rocks out of the field best we could, then plow it all up to make it 1/2 way usable again. Took several years before the mess finally went away. Big companies making promises SUCK, cause you as a little guy can’t fight them when they go bankrupt. What are these people going to do with these wind turbines when they are broken and ready to come down? Do you think this company will be back to fix it? nope. let them put these wind turbines down on the Hollywood sign after all LA will be getting most of the electric produced anyway. So, unless a huge chunk of money is put into an account controlled by the county to guarantee them coming back they won’t. They will go belly up oops so sorry, and we will be left to fix the roads, and take down the mess they left us. I vote NO to this project. poorly thought out and there are much better places for them to rip up and destroy.
While I have not read all the comments, I would like to add; I have not seen mention of the subsidies provided to the “Wind Companies”. The subsidies come from tax dollars which amounts to payment from taxpayers. These factories cannot compete without the subsidies. 25% is not much, subsidized.
The money used for subsidies could be used to rebuild our infrastructure and research into other forms of energy or ways to reduce the amount of energy required. Wind is a poor source all things considered.
I own 170 acres in Virginia. I received by US mail an offer that for the privilege of putting their solar panels on an appreciable area, for a 20 year lease, if there was 3-phase grid wires at or close to the land, they’d pay me $500/acre/year.
I gave it some thought, an elected without consulting anybody, NOT to be impressed by the prospect of getting a million dollars from them by leasing 100 acres. In the first place, I’d be joining a swindle. Wind and Solar will NEVER put Big Carbon out of business.
In the second place, I still have hopes that my adopted fellow-Americans ( I was born in Scotland) will come to their senses, and I’d be stuck with the ugly remains.
I have 2 windmills out in on my half section by Enel wind power they done a great job after done small road 8ft wide. The sight of the turbine s use only 1 acre each I’m a wheat farmer the most that 2 acres will ever make is 500 bucks I will take the 100k plus I have received in the last 8 years….. and I never see dead birds laying around never. They do regional impact studies on migratory birds before they erect any turbines. They are an eye sore but if we don’t get with the times we are gonna be cold and hungry someday theirs no way they can keep pumping that crapout if the ground the way they do and not run out….
I recently spoke to a farmer where I live that read the fine print in his proposal and found where the Land OWNER is responsible for the removal and disposal of the tower once it has reached its life cycle end.
Farmers are loosing their farms due to the cost.
These units cost millions to erect and do not even pay for themselves before they are obsolete. There is nowhere to dispose of the blades so they are being buried. They kill thousands of birds migrating because they are erected in the wind areas wher the migration patterns are. The companies have an agreement with the federal government that they can kill up to a certain number of eagles and birds of prey every year without penalty.
All this to produce expensive electricity to plug your car into; to do away with traditional electricity and fossil fuels.