I am my own Neighbor

i'd think they do, at least thats the way the ones in Ellsworth look. they were all facing different directions etc.

Well given that the wind here either blows for the most part from the north or south and the sun goes east to west makes me wonder how often or how intense the effect would be here given the angle variences.

I do know the 400' turbines rotate depending upon which way the wind blows but I don't remember if the wind was coming from behind the blades or facing the blades.

my2cents wrote:

Whatever pulls your chain, I know it wouldn't be for me, no matter how many minutes a day.

Lemme see. 30-45 minutes (at most) of a somewhat minimally annoying flicker as opposed to coal laden trains (and other dubious material) rumbling through at all hours of the day and night blasting their horns from one end of town to the other, causing our windows to vibrate over a half mile away....I dunno, I think I'll go with the once a day flicker.

When my sister lived on a farm their windmill was west of the house and the sun set behind it. I remember the flicker effect, but I never thought it was annoying. Probably because I didn't hate the guy who put it there.

So, flicker myth busted, what's next?

JustAnotherTourist wrote:

my2cents wrote:

Whatever pulls your chain, I know it wouldn't be for me, no matter how many minutes a day.

Lemme see. 30-45 minutes (at most) of a somewhat minimally annoying flicker as opposed to coal laden trains (and other dubious material) rumbling through at all hours of the day and night blasting their horns from one end of town to the other, causing our windows to vibrate over a half mile away....I dunno, I think I'll go with the once a day flicker.

What? You mean to tell me that trains go thru here with hazardous, dangerous stuff? You mean things like nasty chemicals and acids? Things like deadly gases? Even possibly nuclear waste???? Damn.....

It's all about the $$ and those who will not profit. There is a reason I said Greensburg earlier, can ye figure why?

Yet the same peeps shop Walmart....

Maybe pinwheel power will be a solution, not so tall will be able to move around easier!

Do they have seed for pinwheels?

kansas kid wrote:

Maybe pinwheel power will be a solution, not so tall will be able to move around easier!

or someone can produce the small decorative yard windmills designed to produce power and we can just put lots and lots of them everywhere. on a funny side note, I have seen several of those yard windmills in the housing tract there west of Hays. hmmm......

I forgot pinwheels no shadow or overcast.

LukeTHr wrote:

kansas kid wrote:

Maybe pinwheel power will be a solution, not so tall will be able to move around easier!

or someone can produce the small decorative yard windmills designed to produce power and we can just put lots and lots of them everywhere. on a funny side note, I have seen several of those yard windmills in the housing tract there west of Hays. hmmm......

It has been proven that all 3 of NB's pregnancys have been caused by her parents windmills.

huh?

my2cents wrote:

suzyr wrote:

How fast do the turbine blades rotate? Those that I've seen move so slowly, it's hardly noticable. I don't think that's a valid argument.

Please watch this for 3 minutes and get back to me.

OH MY GOD! I may need a doctor after that!

Are you kidding me with that?? Please thats the most ridiculous argument yet.

This is my response to that video.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwcJEqOwKxs&feature=related

nobodysbusiness wrote:

huh?

Twas a joke, Ma'am.

All that ws heard, was wind against mic.

I can make the same, or close to it with my ass..

nitromaxx98 wrote:

So, flicker myth busted, what's next?

You don't believe it so it is a myth? Not convincing you does not make it any less true.

There are two other sites that have been proposed in this county for wind generated electrical production. There isn't a whole lot of objection to either of those locations.

Does anybody know why?

Where are the other two locations?

NW and SW Ellis county.

These are REAL concerns of those living in the project area. It is so sad there are those of you who want to make light of it and poke fun at someone else’s worries and concerns. We should be banning together to work on this issue to resolve it with perhaps better siting, tighter regulations or writing up comprehensive plan. I have visited with many that live in the project area since I once lived in the same area; they are truly troubled about this. I hope when you have concerns or worries of your own others do not poke fun at you or dismiss you just as you have to others.

my2cents wrote:

These are REAL concerns of those living in the project area. It is so sad there are those of you who want to make light of it and poke fun at someone else’s worries and concerns. We should be banning together to work on this issue to resolve it with perhaps better siting, tighter regulations or writing up comprehensive plan. I have visited with many that live in the project area since I once lived in the same area; they are truly troubled about this. I hope when you have concerns or worries of your own others do not poke fun at you or dismiss you just as you have to others.

I've had worries and concerns of my own in the past and I have always been told by others that it didn't affect "Well, thats just the way things are......". So I can't see any other way to view things that don't affect me. But then again, folks think I complain too much when I voice my opinion and that their opinion is really the only opinion that really matters. In the words of a friend of mine " Sucks to be you...."

BOHICA[/strike]

I watched the video,nice music back ground. The whole shadow effect couldn't last more than a few minutes a day. Heck...I have tree branches that cause the same effect when the sun is positioned right.It hasn't driven me to madness yet.I presume the other 2 locations mentioned are not feasible due to the multi million dollar cost to build transmission lines needed.

LukeTHr wrote:

my2cents wrote:

These are REAL concerns of those living in the project area. It is so sad there are those of you who want to make light of it and poke fun at someone else’s worries and concerns. We should be banning together to work on this issue to resolve it with perhaps better siting, tighter regulations or writing up comprehensive plan. I have visited with many that live in the project area since I once lived in the same area; they are truly troubled about this. I hope when you have concerns or worries of your own others do not poke fun at you or dismiss you just as you have to others.

I've had worries and concerns of my own in the past and I have always been told by others that it didn't affect "Well, thats just the way things are......". So I can't see any other way to view things that don't affect me. But then again, folks think I complain too much when I voice my opinion and that their opinion is really the only opinion that really matters. In the words of a friend of mine " Sucks to be you...."

If this doesn't affect you then why do you feel the need to comment negatively? If their opinion is really the only opinion that really matters why dismiss their concerns by belittling their apprehensions?

I have never had a friend of mine tell me what your “friend” told you, no REAL friend would ever say "Sucks to be you..." but would try to help you find solutions.

Blackie Kuhn wrote:

I presume the other 2 locations mentioned are not feasible due to the multi million dollar cost to build transmission lines needed.

Actually, the other two locations were proposed by the same people who proposed the first one. They are currently active trying to secure leases to place the turbines. When I suggested that the first location was not a suitable location and they should try to find another location, Krista Jo told me this is the only location that had the powerlines in place.
Strangely, it is the same Krista Jo who is now getting leases in those same areas, because they have the lines they need.

Question, was she lying then, or is she lying now? Or both?

Justoo wrote:

Blackie Kuhn wrote:

I presume the other 2 locations mentioned are not feasible due to the multi million dollar cost to build transmission lines needed.

Actually, the other two locations were proposed by the same people who proposed the first one. They are currently active trying to secure leases to place the turbines. When I suggested that the first location was not a suitable location and they should try to find another location, Krista Jo told me this is the only location that had the powerlines in place.
Strangely, it is the same Krista Jo who is now getting leases in those same areas, because they have the lines they need.

Question, was she lying then, or is she lying now? Or both?

hey justoo, politicians lie to us all the time, we should be used to being lied to by now.
I was visiting with a friend of mine that owns land in the north part of the county and we got to talking about property taxes on the windfarms and he said that taxes will be assesed and charged on them like any other property. If he is correct and the numbers he quoted are right it is a huge amout of tax money which is exactly what we need to keep the property taxes lower for the rest of us.

Now here come the arrows........

Justoo wrote:

nitromaxx98 wrote:

So, flicker myth busted, what's next?

You don't believe it so it is a myth? Not convincing you does not make it any less true.

There are two other sites that have been proposed in this county for wind generated electrical production. There isn't a whole lot of objection to either of those locations.

Does anybody know why?

and your claiming it is true does not make it so either. Now as to the other sites that have been considered, could be because it is a big county with lots of wind, like 900 square miles worth of area.

and as for the greed aspect of it. I ask you this; if anyone that lives in the housing west of Hays owned the land that was proposed for the windfarm, don't you think they would pick the money over the neighbors??? I mean be honest now, wouldn't anyone else want to do the same thing. Think about it.... $5000- $10.000 per year per unit and if you own a bunch of ground that could hold maybe 10 or 20 towers, they each would want to be leasing their land as quick as they could. You know as well as I do that money like that would get each and every one of them to pick the money over the neighbors. Like you have been saying, it's all about greed. There is not a soul around that would turn down that kind of money , you know it as well as I do.

Your statement suggests all men are greedy. Perhaps most are. But not all men are greedy.

I have many faults, but greed is not one of mine. And you?

I am simply saying that if you owned land and a company wanted to lease it to put up a wind farm for the kind of money they are offering that you would do so. I think you would be lying to say you wouldn't. Who wouldn't take the opportunity to bring in that kind of money. Hell, if I had it I sure as hell would. Who else here would take it? 50,000 - 200,000 ??? I would like a show of hands please. I think that every person that has been adamnantly opposed to it and publicly fighting it would take it. you would be stupid not to.

I would not take it.

So, are you calling me stupid or are you calling me a liar.

I am not accustomed to people referring to me in either fashion.

I think if it were an actual situation you would take the money. Unless someone was so stinking rich that money was of no matter to them. I find it hard to believe there is anyone that would say, " No I am more concerned about my neighbors happiness than I am about putting $50,000 - $200,000 in the bank" That would be a very rare case indeed.

How many people who were offered to have turbines placed on their land refused?

Question: Would this whole wind turbine controversy be easier to settle if Iberdrola was not in the mix? Is it a problem because a foreign company is involved, or would it be the same mess if it was being done to directly benefit the energy users of Ellis County? Personally, I believe every county in the state should have their own wind powered generators that would directly lower everyone's energy bill. As the costs of energy skyrocket--we are going to have to make some hard decisions about how we are going to deal with it. Coal powered energy plants are some of the cheapest and most reliable-but do we want to sacrifice the air and further speed up global warming? Nuclear is good- until a Chernyobel or Three-Mile-Island episode occurs. Choices-Decisions-Consequences. We're all in this together.

This project was opposed before Iberdrola got into the mix.

Wind power raises your power bill, and your taxes. This is a project you get to pay for twice. Lucky you.

LukeTHr-Yes, I would most assuredly take the money. Only the wealthy or the mentally infirm would quaffle with the decision to accept the kind of money you are describing. I am neither--I am also not a hypocrite. I DO HAVE SCRUPLES, but I also have debt, and people depending on me. A smelly old pump-jack pumping crude oil into a tank battery is not a pretty site either but amazingly, there are hundreds of them in the county and people are profitting from them daily. I have never been wealthy, but I'd like to give it a try!

You have scruples and I am mentally infirm, or a liar, or stupid. I see now.

If I don't agree to take the money there must be something wrong with me.
Greed is human nature, plain and simple. If you are not greedy you most probably have lost your ability to reason and should probably should be institutionalized.

nitromaxx98 wrote:

How many people who were offered to have turbines placed on their land refused?

I told two different guys that had cattle and pig pens close to their houses on the South side that I couldn't see how they could stand that smell in the summer. They both replied exactly the same by saying "I only smell money". I figure the turbines are the same deal. They're annoying to all who have to put up with them, but if cash can even make the stench of manure lagoons in the summer tolerable, then nearly anything can be lived with.

Justoo wrote:

There are two other sites that have been proposed in this county for wind generated electrical production. There isn't a whole lot of objection to either of those locations.

Does anybody know why?

Because there are no proposed housing developments there yet and it's not a convenient commute to Hays?

Justoo-I have not lost my ability to reason and need no institutional facilities. Therefore, according to you--I must be greedy. Yes, you have me figured out. Like I said, I have scruples, but I am not a hypocrite. I'm almost positive that I am one of only a few in this county that would dare to accept large sums of money for such a dastardly contrivance as a wind powered generator. I apologize for my weaknesses. You are so very right-I am so very wrong.

Justoo wrote:

You have scruples and I am mentally infirm, or a liar, or stupid. I see now.

If I don't agree to take the money there must be something wrong with me.
Greed is human nature, plain and simple. If you are not greedy you most probably have lost your ability to reason and should probably should be institutionalized.

I don't know your thought on the matter and will not assume I do. I do know farmers up to their butts in debt trying to pay off equipment, crop failures, failed investments etc. If I had land and knew getting turbines would erase debts that I'd otherwise work myself into the grave paying, I think I'd take it. I would try to deal fairly with adjoining landowners, but I'd take it.

What I see here is two totally opposite sides in a no give fued, which is why I refuse to side with anyone. I have yet to see a moderate position from either side on the windfarm argument.

Justoo wrote:

You have scruples and I am mentally infirm, or a liar, or stupid. I see now.

If I don't agree to take the money there must be something wrong with me.
Greed is human nature, plain and simple. If you are not greedy you most probably have lost your ability to reason and should probably should be institutionalized.

Then you are in an extreme minority in this counrty that is not in debt and are happy with your income.

I have loans to pay, taxes to pay, living expenses to pay, kids to support and somewhere in there I am trying to enjoy a bit of life along the way and still put some aside for retirement. I haven't inherited a fortune from anyone and the odds of that happeneing are slim to none. So I would have to say that I would opt to have the windfarm. I don't believe they are as evil as they are made out to be and since we have all these concerns of global warming they are a good option for a cleaner form of energy.

Serpico- I did not call you greedy. I was merely pointing out that you called me mentally infirm.

LukeTHr wrote:

Justoo wrote:

You have scruples and I am mentally infirm, or a liar, or stupid. I see now.

If I don't agree to take the money there must be something wrong with me.
Greed is human nature, plain and simple. If you are not greedy you most probably have lost your ability to reason and should probably should be institutionalized.

Then you are in an extreme minority in this counrty that is not in debt and are happy with your income.

I have loans to pay, taxes to pay, living expenses to pay, kids to support and somewhere in there I am trying to enjoy a bit of life along the way and still put some aside for retirement. I haven't inherited a fortune from anyone and the odds of that happeneing are slim to none. So I would have to say that I would opt to have the windfarm. I don't believe they are as evil as they are made out to be and since we have all these concerns of global warming they are a good option for a cleaner form of energy.

I guess that makes me greedy and without scruples

LukeTHr wrote:

I was visiting with a friend of mine that owns land in the north part of the county and we got to talking about property taxes on the windfarms and he said that taxes will be assesed and charged on them like any other property. If he is correct and the numbers he quoted are right it is a huge amout of tax money which is exactly what we need to keep the property taxes lower for the rest of us.

Now here come the arrows........

Wind turbines are exempt from property taxes. It is estimated that they will last approximately 20 years. There is no financial assurance that the wind companies will remove thse towers when they are done with them. That is a huge amount of tax money we will spend to get rid of the 400' carcasses they leave behind after NOT paying property taxes for the entire time.

Justoo wrote:

Wind turbines are exempt from property taxes. It is estimated that they will last approximately 20 years. There is no financial assurance that the wind companies will remove thse towers when they are done with them.

The same holds true for a lot of new businesses. So what's your point?

Most new businesses are not exempt from property tax for life.

As far as the removal goes I am sure you are thinking about how the buildings they are in will be reused so there is no need to remove the building. As far as that goes, you are right.
But look at it this way. If an oil well is abandoned because it no longer produces, the company is required to plug it at their expense. If someone comes up with an alternate use for abandoned turbines, much like an unused building, fine. But as it stands now, Iberdrola can just walk away from their mess and it will be Ellis County's financial responsibility to clean up.

then we just call pfiefer salvage , chop'm down and haul'm off

When did pfeifer salvage start working for free?