I don't really have an opinion either, but a new large wind farm was just constructed about 40 miles from me. This is rural farming country.

I know the (out of state) company was able to make agreements with quite a few landowners along a ridge, but there are a few properties dotted here and there who were obviously opposed. They still have signs and billboards on their properties citing their strong opposition to the turbines. However, the company must have been able to get enough landowners to agree to go ahead with their project. A major highway crosses the ridge and we can easily observe a lot of the turbines from the highway

I'm curious if the company purchased or leased the small spots of land on which to construct each turbine, and what kind of $$$ each landowner received per turbine site. Anybody know?

In a word, NO.

I'm curious, kentrees. Why?

Here in my state, the land was leased from farmers and the cost to the company for the lease is approx. $10,000 a year to each landholder.

Oops, edited my error on the lease costs!

I'm curious also, kentrees.

I don't understand why anyone would be opposed to it.

Property values for those that live close, TG.

It depends. If they are working with organizations, such as Audubon, to protect important bird areas (IBA) and lessen environmental impacts, then I am much more likely to be supportive. If they are seeking to do an end run, no.

I agree with weighing the impact on local residents, too. Many in CA are not near any population areas. I am not up on where NC is planning a to expand their wind farms.

gyr falcon - from what the lady told me me, a lot of the appeal is focusing on environmental studies that were handed over to Coastal Management but not to our county officials. To me that sounds as if the study proved detrimental to wildlife. I'm not certain of that but it's what it sounds like to me. Hence the reason I need more knowledge before signing.

Also, a neighboring property has someone that suffers from vertigo so they are citing health concerns for nearby residents.

Like any commercial project, they are fine until they are close to your residence.

I own 160 acres of farmland in Illinois. Around my farm are other farms. Most of them do not have houses on them anymore, typically a farmer works his own fields and those owned by others. One can drive for several miles without see an occupied home.

Having an alternate source of energy come from my farm (we have refused companies who want to drill on the property) would be a welcome choice for me. Sure, the guaranteed income for their right of way access only would be a nice cushion, but I would not be so against or for any petition about adding the turbines.

In November I was in Spain and they have their turbines almost in town along the Mediterranean coast. It is common. What many people might not take into consideration with the construction of the wind turbines is the number people who are employed as a result of this endeavor. Is that bad? Not to my way of thinking. And turbines don't make smoke and soot; and they don't stink.

moonie, I appreciate your wanting to become informed prior to deciding. I have seen so many people listen to the title, and brief script, for proposition petitions and immediately sign without any further thought put into it, that it is disheartening.

My reasons for opposition, in no particular order.

Wind energy is not a stand-alone on demand power source. It is only available when the wind is, assuming the wind is blowing at an acceptable rate. It requires a 24/7/365 'sister', our national electrical grid.

Wind energy is costly. Current (US) installations rely on gov. funding/tax breaks. At the current state of the art, wind and solar together can't come anywhere near close to replacing fossil energy. My local utility offers 'green energy units', at about THREE TIMES the cost of their conventionally generated power.

The reliability of the units MAY be questionable, and the useful life of the units is the shortest of any existing energy units, save solar.

They are ugly. They are a blot on the landscape. They lower property values in their vicinity, and they are often proposed in areas of high real value and exceptional scenery.

Just something I ran across while researching...

"Bald and golden eagles may be legally killed or injured in the thousands
by high-speed turbines (reaching speeds up to 170 miles per hour),
under new regulations released Wednesday by the Obama administration.
The rules, which affect individual wind-energy companies that plan to
operate the technology for up to 30 years, allows up to 4,200 of the
birds to perish. Enforcement by federal officials is set to begin in
January prior to President Obama’s last day in office."

I wonder if that is 4,200 birds over a 30 year period?

EDITED to add...

On the other hand, it appears from the company policies they're -trying- to protect wildlife. Policies are as follows per ABPP (Avian and Bat Protection Plan):

Document bird and bat mortalities and injuries at projects and/or structures in order to implement adaptive management actions as necessary.

Provide information, training, and resources to improve staff knowledge and awareness of the requirements of the ABPP in order to support the ABPP’s successful implementation at both the company level and as applied at specific projects.

Participate with public and private organizations in programs and scientific research to identify causes and effective controls of detrimental effects of bird and bat interactions with wind projects.

Continue to enhance the ABPP by applying lessons learned, research results, new technologies, and latest regulations and guidelines

I agree with Ken....they are a blight on the countryside. Every time I've driven by them, most of them were barely moving.

I love the birds. They should be important. If we do nothing to move from fossil fuels, the climate will show no mercy to birds as well. What choices do we have? We can't sacrifice our drinking water by injecting toxics into the ground and let microscopic\nuclear waste products decay into things that hang around for millions of years and cause cancer whenever we get exposed to them by wind, dust or water. These issues will hurt animals more than it will us, because they can't take steps to avoid them.

If we can prevent or lessen any destruction by violent storms, pollution of our air water and land, swinging temps that do not favor agriculture and flooding of our coastal areas, I say some wind and solar farms are worth it. No options are perfect and all require a sacrifice of some sort. I'd prefer clean air and water and no crop failures. When we find something else better to replace them with, we can remove the windmills. Hopefully battery technology gets better so we need to make less and we learn to value resources so we waste less. Thanks for the thoughtful discussion.

Definitely would support! My husband work in the oil field for 39 years. There's nothing uglier or more harmful to the environment. Would much rather see wind turbines. There's much that can be done to negate the harm to birds. It's a step in the right direction.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/27/wind-energy-myths-turbines-bats

"A 2012 Bureau of Land Management memo states
that “oil field production skim pits and centralized oilfield
wastewater disposal facilities kill an estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000
birds annually.” This suggests oil production alone (i.e. not including
the production of coal or gas) can kill the same, if not more, birds per
year than wind farms in the U.S.

Even still, there are greater threats to birds than energy production, including cats and buildings.

A 2013 Nature study
by Loss and others estimated that “free-ranging domestic cats kill
1.3–4.0 billion birds” in the U.S. annually. But the researchers added,
“Un-owned cats, as opposed to owned pets, cause the majority of this
mortality.”

In another study published in the journal The Condor in
2014, Loss and colleagues also estimated “that between 365 million and 988 million birds … are killed annually by building collisions in
the U.S., with roughly 56% of mortality at low-rises, 44% at residences,
and 1% at high-rises.”

Source: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/trumps-hot-air-on-wind-energy/

kittymoonbeam - just to touch on one of your points... Just getting rid of them seems to be an impossible feat. Denmark
has reported in their leading business journal concerning replacement of aging blades, "There exists no
solution". They now have 600 aging turbines- thus, 1,800 aging
blades at 170 ft average and 22,000 lbs! And landfills won't take them. Fiberglass is difficult to recycle.

cindymac - I haven't yet been able to read your links but I will. And thanks!

No real help here, but we have travelled up and down and into much of our Western States, and I can vouch for Mountains cluttered with the windmills. Once upon a time, the coastal mountains between San Francisco and the Central Valley, they "charmed me"; they seemed to be such happy things, almost applauding my being there. Hah. The proliferation that we see now, 20/30 or more years later do not offer the same appeal. They are so closely stacked together they look like the remnants of a horrific forrest fire. Herds of cattle used to range there...and they still could when they were not so many. The people in the valley of Palm Springs protested greatly that they didn't want the ridges populated by thousands of windmills....they lost and it probably is the most unsightly I have seen, jmo. And we have observed very very few making energy. I repeat...Very few making energy. I think the new look of a (one) windmill near to a single house, barn setup could be an acceptable view in our landscape, but to power a city or a large area....the technology is just not there to my knowledge. Imagine what our great birds of prey see when it is a vast area of pointy sticks looking to entangle those large wingspans.....and their job in our environment is to keep the vermin under control, and we human beings seem to be always learning how important ALL the threads connect our good lives together. I'm still thinking about the miles of solar collectors that make 'lake-like' reflectors in our desert.

We have them in California of course. They are a blight and they kill birds. I think I read somewhere that California's golden eagle population fell by 80%. Funding appears to have run out for maintenance. Many are broken.

I cross posted with Nanny. She stated it better than I.

Ontario Wind Turbines

After have had one put in near me....no. They are not energy efficient.. An article in the local paper said it would take 400 years to pay for them for no more energy they produce. Those things will be deteriorating long before that. The farmers hate them and are in lawsuits to try to get their payments and the ones who live near them, hate the noise they make. We also have a nuclear plant and the does produce a lot of good clean energy.

I think I read somewhere that California's golden eagle population fell by 80%.

No basis for this statement that I can find, Watchmelol -- do you have one? Based on what I, an ecologist, see (goldens are common around here -- often circle the Safeway parking lot), on the annual report of the Golden Gate Raptor Observatory I just received (I spent 6 years as a volunteer fall-migration watcher with them), and on this study, for one, golden eagle populations seem to be stable. While there has been an elevated kill rate associated with the Altamont wind farms to the east of our city, (somewhat mitigated by changing the style of wind turbines), that was more due to bad siting than an inherent characteristic of wind farms in general, others of which have far less bird mortality. Windows (skyscrapers especially), cats, cars, and electrical wires all kill far more birds, by many orders of magnitude, than wind turbines (as CindyMac pointed out). There may be reasons wind power is not a perfect solution, but bird mortality is not a strong argument against them.

First, Brushworks' link.

It's a political piece with a bit of hyperbole. To say that Ontario has the highest power rates in North America is very wrong. Last time I looked, I'm in North America. My baseline electricity cost (if I were to turn on one light bulb and nothing else all month) is over 18 cents per kwh, compared to Ontario's peak rate at 17.5 cents and off peak at 8.3. Forget that the Canadian dollar is currently 75 cents, that makes the peak rate more like 13 US cents. During air conditioning season, part of my bill was in the 40 cents per kwh level. So much for that information.

Yes, I support wind farms. The more, the sooner, the better. Yes, I've seen windfarms around California and Europe. Also the solar plants out in the desert and in uninhabited areas. Their beauty comes from thinking about the ugly and terribly polluting power plants they replace. Those of you with NIMBY attitudes are going to have to suck it up and deal with it, because renewable energy is where the world is going to.

Here's one of the many now existing but soon to be scrapped alternatives, the 5th largest emitter of CO2 in the US, the coal burning Navajo Power Station near Page, AZ, that I drove by earlier this year.

(Edit to add - 3rd largest emitter of CO2, not 5th)

Navajo Power Station

The"report" may have suspect facts in some areas, but is a thoughtful one that might be taken apart and found to have some factual evidence to move forward with. The Public needs to be heard and given All the facts when these objections happen. Big Public (HA) Corporations should not be able to be the Biggest Hog at the table in making my small contribution $5.00 be totally swallowed up by their millions in attorneys salaries that have been created from MY taxes or my payments or my future payments for having their service....and it being my only option for service. Sound familiar. I have seen many many unsightly coal burning stations and I have been surprised at how clean and efficient some newer ones are. The Perfect answer has not been devised, but I do feel confident that it will happen. I also feel like telling any group to "suck it up" is counterproductive and disrespectful. Renewable Energy is our future....no doubt, but it needs lots more work. Saying there is only one way forward or even two, simply can not be true. Why would one want to compare an out-dated relic of energy production to what is happening today? Actually, many of the 'relic and 30-40 year old wind mills, that sit, stabbing into the air like talons to our birds of prey.....how are we going to dispose of those...at what cost. WE must learn to have longer vision and not be led down the paths of 'get rich schemes"

Some folks in my state are for wind turbines until they realize where the site will be and then they yell, "Not in my back yard!" These are the type of people who want to enjoy the benefits at someone Else's cost or inconvenience. Sad to say that we have too many of these people in my state.

As to bird kill, I have not seen real data from actual observations, or comparison to other bird kill objects such as tall buildings, smokestacks, chimneys, radio towers, guy wire supports, vehicular traffic, transmission lines, and poisoned food. (Many crop seeds are treated to reduce mold and spoilage and most of these treatments are poisonous to birds and people should they ingest any.) I do know about a new solar plant in California that became a big bird killer as soon as it went into operation. This is a very large plant that uses heliostats to catch the sun's rays and direct these rays to a central boiler on a tower in the middle of many acres of collectors. The rays are very intense near the boiler. The workers have coined the term, smokers, to describe hapless birds that might fly through the concentrated beams. The birds are scorched to a crisp and leave a trail of smoke as they plunge to the ground. The Editor of Power Magazine has said, this problem is severe and no deterrent has been found, that no other plant of this type will ever likely be built. This is very unfortunate because this technology was so promising. This large scale demonstration plant was a technical success, and a failure in regard to wildlife.

I'm not sure why birds are killed by the very large, slow turning wind turbines. I suppose the tip velocity of these blades can be high, but most I've seen turn at slow speed when putting out power. Maybe there is a problem with migrating song birds. Many of these small birds migrate at night. Ornithologists believe that night migration avoids predators.

There is a problem with noise. Occasional, a support tower will develop a vibratory hum. This can be disconcerting if it is too close to a house. The obvious solution is siting: Don't put a turbine too close to a dwelling or livestock building.

I haven't heard any discussion about any effect that the rotating blades might have on through-the-air reception of radio, TV, or cell phones. If the blades are transparent to radio waves, the effect should be minimal. However, if reflections are generated, the effect could be bad.

I would have no problem supporting wind, though the larger problem is renewables are not reliable...the sun has to shine, the wind has to blow...so you still need the capacity to meet the energy demands for those times when renewables aren't working. If more effort were put into recycling and safely storing nuclear waste, IMHO, it is a far better solution. Especially today with computerized controls which are so much more sophisticated than those used during 3 mile island. I mean, if they can make a nuclear power plant safe enough to be portable, they certainly should be able to come up with a consistent, safe, repeatable and affordable design on land. But that's another story.

One issue I have not understood well, though, is why windmills look much as they did hundreds of years ago. It may just be invested patents and technologies that continue to drive their design. The vertical shaft are supposed to be less damaging to birds and better capture the wind from all directions.

And as far as the bird issue goes, if the climate goes haywire, the birds are doomed anyway...as are we.

I don't mind wind farms accompanied by strategic planning. We have a few in my area that are located in commercial areas.

For those who want coal to disappear, forget it. The US has about 200 years of coal to mine and it will get mined. Exports generate billions of $$ for USA and our government won't give that away to Russia or China.

Steel and iron won't be made by wind power, (not in our lifetime) but coal, steel and iron will always be required to produce wind power.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/samso-denmark-renewable-energy-climate-change-global-warming-solar-wind-power/

SAMSO, Denmark-- "It's an out-of-the-way place that
takes some getting to, but the little Danish island of Samso -- a
20-mile-long squiggle of farms and tidy villages -- is providing answers
to some of the biggest questions facingour warming world.

Samso's residents have already found ways to reduce their greenhouse gas output to effectively zero.

They
haven't done it using magical new technology, they've used what they
have readily available; power from the wind, power from the sun and
power from crop waste."

...Continued at link with video

I love the idea of solar panels....imagine parking lots covered with solar panels that protect the cars from the sun and rain while generating power all day long. We have 5 kw on our roof and it is a miracle to me every day that we can generate power silently, cleanly, without disturbing anyone or anything. Amazing.

Our municipal facility is solar powered.
Solar Powell

I spent the better part of yesterday, way into the night, reading everything I could find. The mistake I made was to move over to social media. It left me rather stunned to see postings by friends, neighbors and acquaintances on a face book page created to fight this wind project. It was worse than any of the political crap over the past year and kind of took the wind out of my sails, no pun intended. I'm disheartened by it all and decided to take a step back and enjoy the weekend. Next week I am going to take a ride over to the other site and check it out more thoroughly, but I do know that at this point I'm not going to sign the petition. But I am more interested in wind power than I realized.

Good for you, moonie. Get your own information, make up your own mind.

Be sure to look into what the power sources are for the company that would use this electricity. What kind of energy sources are used now to generate electricity, that the proposed wind power would supplement or replace?

Another "Good for You!", Moonie. I hope you will come back and help your friends at the table be a bit more informed on the subject. I will be one of them. Renewable Energy and Climate Change is a topic very much in our minds in the State of Oregon....and the way forward is just so unclear. Interestingly, I haven't seen any wind turbines in this state...maybe a lone one on occasion; but the eastern part of the High Desert could have them.

The big question is how to reduce energy consumption.

It took our Maui condo complex six years to get permission to install solar panels on our horizontal roofs. Guess what utility is trying to prevent this? Yes the power plant the burns OIL.

We've done a lot to reduce our energy consumption and are pleased with the results...from solar panels to closed cell insulation and tankless water heaters and a geothermal heating and cooling system. If everyone could do something, even small, it would make a tremendous difference to the planet.

Annie, I wish we could go solar but it's not something we can do right now. So happy you're doing your part!

Earlier I rode over to the other project and was surprised to find that the closest turbines are only 12 miles away. Closer, as the crow flies.

This isn't a good pic. Was a cloudy day and my hand isn't steady. I was appx 300 yards off. These aren't as big as I thought. The ones proposed for my town are almost 100 ft taller.