I am my own Neighbor

they have hauled many a used car away for nothing. it's called recycling

Justoo wrote:

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.

No, in some cases with new businesses they remain tax exempt until the point of expiration and which point they close and move to a new location and begin the process over again. As far as oilfield equipment goes, there seems to be a lot of bone yards scattered all over the county and state that become gigantic rust piles and nobody seems to overly concern themselves with that. And we haven't even discussed the ecological impact of them while they're in operation. As far as buildings go, I've seen plenty of abandoned buildings fall into disrepair to the point of becoming an even greater eye-sore than the bone yards. How many municipalities have been left with the task of demolishing them? Given the rising drive to re-use of equipment or the scrapping and selling of obsolete equipment ( and being bought back from nations like..China) I suspect that obsolete turbines will meet the same fate.

Sorry friend, this argument doesn't wash.

I have to agree with all the old outdated oilfield trash that abounds here and other places. I think all the junk on 8th street and the west side of Russell should be moved.It's a disgrace to look at but as long as these business are paying taxes , nothing will happen. I don't even want to start on the topic of zoning. It seems to get ugly when it does come up.

JustAnotherTourist wrote:

No, in some cases with new businesses they remain tax exempt until the point of expiration and which point they close and move to a new location and begin the process over again.

They stay until it expires is different than being guaranteed that you will never have to pay property taxes.

JustAnotherTourist wrote:

As far as oilfield equipment goes, there seems to be a lot of bone yards scattered all over the county and state that become gigantic rust piles... Given the rising drive to re-use of equipment or the scrapping and selling of obsolete equipment

You are contradicting yourself. If you are right that these turbines will be recycled because of their scrap value, then these bone piles will soon disappear.

Have you considered the equipment it will take to dismantle these 400' towers? I don't think Pfeifer will take them for free after he buys a crane big enough to take them down. And not all of it is that easy to recycle. There is the fiberglass covered blades that also take a huge truck just to haul off. The answer is no where near is simple as you make it out to be.

If the dismantling and recycling of these towers were sure to pay for themselves, surely Iberdrola would be eager to put down a surety bond. They undoubtedly would get back every penny. But apparently they have doubts as they won't put down any bond money to clean up after themselves.

Justoo wrote:

You are contradicting yourself. If you are right that these turbines will be recycled because of their scrap value, then these bone piles will soon disappear.

No I haven't.

Another thing you fail to consider is the amount of copper wire that things are laden with. We're talking about a metal that thieves are stripping out of homes just because of the resale value. Do you honestly believe that a salvage company will leave this stuff lay out there? Lastly, no regulatory agency be it state or federal will allow a foreign or domestic corporation to abandon these generators in place. Sorry, it just will not happen. This isn't some third world country.

I considered the copper. And the steel supports. And the outer skin.

And the nacelle 350' up in the air. Do they just unbolt that and let it fall? What about the 100-150 gallons of oil in the nacelle?

JustAnotherTourist wrote:

Lastly, no regulatory agency be it state or federal will allow a foreign or domestic corporation to abandon these generators in place. Sorry, it just will not happen. This isn't some third world country.

The government is here to protect you from big corporations that would otherwise harm you.
And this proves it

We don't ever have to protect ourselves.

I hear what you are all saying.The pro and cons....... What I wonder is what happens to the people, towns, country sides, and anything in the way, if a tornado goes through a field of these wind turbines???? A tornado like Greensburg had last year???? That gives me night mares just thinking about it. This would be a scary movie.

jewelz wrote:

I hear what you are all saying.The pro and cons....... What I wonder is what happens to the people, towns, country sides, and anything in the way, if a tornado goes through a field of these wind turbines???? A tornado like Greensburg had last year???? That gives me night mares just thinking about it. This would be a scary movie.

In an F5 tornado it won't matter much if it's windmills, tin buildings, cars, cattle, utility poles, barbed wire, or straw bales. Anything thrown at you at that kind of speed is going to mess you up. Unless of course you re-zone everything for miles around you to be nothing but unfenced short grass kept regularly mowed. But then again, an F5 tornado would be too busy throwing all your own property at you to notice what it brought with it anyways.

Now on that note, I personally think the distance should be a little more than 1000 foot from homes unless the homeowner says otherwise is ok. Maybe 2000, but not a full mile as some suggest because that could cut out landowners who only have one section from participating.

On the subject of who will junk them out, I'm more worried about who will get stuck cleaning up the wonderland of lead on the by-pass.

If a tornado the size of the Greensburg F5 hits Hays-wind turbines will be the last of our worries. I've never seen catastophic damage like I saw in Greensburg. It looked like the whole town had undergone a carpetbombing like Dresden did in WW2. To this day I still don't understand how only a dozen or so people were killed. I know that they had ample warning of the storms approach, but it was so violent that it easily could have killed hundreds of people. It was definately a reality check--if it could happen there, it could just as easily happen here. A couple of things I learned from the experience: When you run to the safety of your basement during a tornado alert, make sure that you have your shoes on. If it destroys your house, there will be broken glass, jagged metal, and broken boards with nails everywhere. The other thing: Make sure that you are holding onto a flashlite or lantern. Don't lay it somewhere near because when all hell breaks lose and you lose your electricity along with part or all of your house, you will need some light to see your way out or signal for help. The signs are already there that this is going to be another summer of wild weather. Be ready for it.

Justoo wrote:

I considered the copper. And the steel supports. And the outer skin.

And the nacelle 350' up in the air. Do they just unbolt that and let it fall? What about the 100-150 gallons of oil in the nacelle?

Let's see, the oil would be piped down into a tank truck and hauled away to a recycling facility. As for the nacelles, it would probably be taken down by a crane so as to not damage the components in it that could be reused in other units. Then the crane and cutting torches would take the rest of it down. Since all will be out of commission at the same time it would be cost effective for the salvage crews to bring in the required equipment. Another scenario is for the needed components to be replaced and the windmills continue to produce power.

Hawaiian Electric built the state's first wind farm in the 1980s in Kahuku, but technical problems, common at the time, forced the company to abandon it in the early 1990s. Wind turbine technology has since improved, and developers are again turning their focus to the area.

link to above newspaper quote

Driving back from the southern tip of Hawaii's big island, the southernmost point in the US, we came across this abandoned field of windmills. Strange, because the area gets so much wind, you think they'd turn (heh) a huge profit. The sky was ominous, and the sound of the blades turning, eerie (Added:05/07/2007 Runtime: 0m:14s )

Link to above comment

The metals market has had a couple of surges that should have gotten this cleaned up.

Those people that want to think the worst scenario possible, will do so. Those that only believe the best is possible will believe their side. The reality will be somewhere in the middle.

Justoo wrote:

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.

It's called PILOT and it totals $600,000 per year, making the project the second highest tax producer in the county.

The first is Walmart. Which does nothing to help the environment.

Sorry, PILOT stands for Payment In Leu Of Taxes.

Unlike taxes, if they choose not to pay the $600,000, we have no legal recourse to collect said monies. They are paid at their whim.

And wal-mart does not displace wildlife from 10,000 acres of prime grassland habitat at a time.

Justoo wrote:

Unlike taxes, if they choose not to pay the $600,000, we have no legal recourse to collect said monies. They are paid at their whim.

And wal-mart does not displace wildlife from 10,000 acres of prime grassland habitat at a time.

your statement about animal displacement goes on the assumption that they will only be located on grassland. The windmills will also be in plowed fields which represents a majority of this county. So your're a bit exaggerated on that. And once they are in place, the wildlife will resume normal activities in the pasture areas.

Let me ask this...... how much prime animal habitat has been overrun by housing developments on the outskirts of Hays in the last 15 years or so?
Those have displaced the wildlive forever now.

The project area near Hays is mostly grassland, with some tilled areas. I am not assuming that all of it will be grass. But most of it is. So I did not exaggerate.
The wild life resuming normal activitis is an assumption on your part. Some will. Some will not. The Prairie Chicken will not breed anywhere near a tall structure. These animals will be permanently displaced.

You mean the Housing developments in prime habitat next to old 40? Ask some of those deer laying in the ditch along old 40 how prime the that habitat is next to the highway.

Well justoo, if we can't have windmills upsetting either homeowners, or disturbing grasslands that might be inhabited by prairie chickens, doesn't that pretty much mean they couldn't be anywhere in our area? All we have is farms and grass.

Serpico wrote:

If a tornado the size of the Greensburg F5 hits Hays-wind turbines will be the last of our worries. I've never seen catastophic damage like I saw in Greensburg. It looked like the whole town had undergone a carpetbombing like Dresden did in WW2. To this day I still don't understand how only a dozen or so people were killed. I know that they had ample warning of the storms approach, but it was so violent that it easily could have killed hundreds of people. It was definately a reality check--if it could happen there, it could just as easily happen here. A couple of things I learned from the experience: When you run to the safety of your basement during a tornado alert, make sure that you have your shoes on. If it destroys your house, there will be broken glass, jagged metal, and broken boards with nails everywhere. The other thing: Make sure that you are holding onto a flashlite or lantern. Don't lay it somewhere near because when all hell breaks lose and you lose your electricity along with part or all of your house, you will need some light to see your way out or signal for help. The signs are already there that this is going to be another summer of wild weather. Be ready for it.

I don't even want to think about if something like that went through the heart of Hays. It would be castasrophic.

Justoo wrote:

The project area near Hays is mostly grassland, with some tilled areas. I am not assuming that all of it will be grass. But most of it is. So I did not exaggerate.
The wild life resuming normal activitis is an assumption on your part. Some will. Some will not. The Prairie Chicken will not breed anywhere near a tall structure. These animals will be permanently displaced.

You mean the Housing developments in prime habitat next to old 40? Ask some of those deer laying in the ditch along old 40 how prime the that habitat is next to the highway.

Let me make sure I follow what you're saying.... Windmills will permenantly disrupt wildlife while housing developments do not?? So no prairie chickens, pheasant, meadowlarks, rabbits, snakes, coyotes, fox, hawks or bobcats may have been displaced by housing developments? Deer populations have not gotten out of control because of the lack of hunting in those areas? That deer situation concerns me because I would prefer not to hit one with my vehicle.

LukeTHr wrote:

So no prairie chickens, pheasant, meadowlarks, rabbits, snakes, coyotes, fox, hawks or bobcats may have been displaced by housing developments? Deer populations have not gotten out of control because of the lack of hunting in those areas? That deer situation concerns me because I would prefer not to hit one with my vehicle.

Those developments are right next to the highway. No Prairie Chickens are nesting in the area near the highways. Too much activity for those birds. Pheasants may have had to nest elswhere. Meadowlarks rabbits snakes and hawks mix well with such areas. Foxes actually may have been advantaged by these developments. The coyote is a natural enemy. They tend to shy away from developed areas and the fox has learned to take advantage of this fact. I don't know too much about bobcats, but I would think they are uncomfortable with human activity.

As far as deer hunting in the highway corridor, I wasn't comfortable with high powered rifles that close to the highway before they added the houses. There is better hunting areas than the ditches of old 40.

If the pheasant had to nest elsewhere? Why can't the Prairie Chicken move on also?The whole thing is just bullshit! The housing development is probably as detrimental to wildlife as any wind farm.

I don't know about better areas, there sure are a LOT of dead deer laying in the ditches there at Yocemento. I see a lot more deer along there than the areas I get to hunt

Pheasants are not as particular as prairie chickens are as far as their breeding habitat.

Male prairie chickens attract their mates by "booming," a process where the male inflates the air sacs on each side of its neck, erects the pinnae on the back of the neck, and stamp its feet. The "booming" sound made by the prairie chickens has been described as resembling the sound made when blowing over the neck of the bottle, and can be heard up to two miles on calm mornings.

Preferred booming ground sites, also known as "leks," are located on elevated, droughty, shortgrass land such as hilltops or ridges, often the tallest point for at least 0.04 kilometers (one-fourth mile). Grounds can be overgrazed hilltops, saltlicks, trails, rocky shallow ridges, or cultivated lands.

Ideally, booming grounds are best located in areas where at least 75% of the surrounding habitat is pastureland. This grassland should be in good to excellent range condition

LukeTHr wrote:

I don't know about better areas, there sure are a LOT of dead deer laying in the ditches there at Yocemento. I see a lot more deer along there than the areas I get to hunt

Trade your rifle for a Buick.

I think the overpopulation of deer in that area is in need of some heavy hunting activity by rifle

So prarie chickens outweigh the needs of your own energy consumption?

Do you create your own energy?

Or is it that it as long as it comes from somewhere else, no worries?

justoo.. I know you're getting plenty of flak here already, but I'm afraid my question wasn't answered. Wouldn't keeping windfarms out of both populated areas and potential prairie chicken habitats pretty much mean you don't want windfarms anywhere in NW KS?

Ratzilla wrote:

justoo.. I know you're getting plenty of flak here already, but I'm afraid my question wasn't answered. Wouldn't keeping windfarms out of both populated areas and potential prairie chicken habitats pretty much mean you don't want windfarms anywhere in NW KS?

I am asking that they follow the guidelines as stated by the state of Kansas. Areas that are predominantly tilled are prefered over areas that are predominately grassland. There is a hell of a lot of tilled land out there that is suitable. Some times parcels of grass my be involved, but locations that are mostly grassland that has never been turned should be avoided.

Much of the growth in Ellis county is what is described as corridor growth. It is following old 40. The proposed location north of Ellis (north of Locust Grove Road) is an area that is mostly tilled and predominately populated by those who would (presumably) benefit financially from this project. This location would minimize the impact on those who do not want it in their laps. There may still be a couple of families that object, but it won't be 100 families. The population is not that dense there.
I have no objection to placing these close to homes of those who want them and/or profit from them.

nitromaxx98 wrote:

So prarie chickens outweigh the needs of your own energy consumption?

Do you create your own energy?

Or is it that it as long as it comes from somewhere else, no worries?

Our lives are more intertwined with wildlife than, perhaps, you understand.

You make it sound as if I wouldn't allow wind energy anywhere. This allegation is not accurate. There are more suitable locations than the one proposed near Hays.

I do create some poential energy. Methane capture is still an elusive technology, so my potential for energy production is blowing in the wind.

Did you know that Hays High School is located where it is now because the original proposed location was determined to be unsuitable? Most citizens agreed we needed a new building, however they had the common sense to find a suitable location.

I know some farmers who'd probably give up the uncertain outcomes of wheat farming for watching windmills.

I feel some of you are losing sight of the reason why so many in the currently proposed site are against THIS project. There are 100 families that feel they are being imposed on by being FORCED into this especially since there are so many uncertainties regarding 2 major topics; health and property values. They are not against the turbines but against the location of said turbines. There are literaly thousands of acres of land in Ellis County where nobody lives. Why can't a project be place in these areas?

The way that I understood the article in today's paper, they've agreed to decrease the number of turbines in order to change the boundry lines so that current residents are more willing to accept the project. It does not affect me personally, and it won't as I live in town, so I haven't a judgement one way or the other, but that is the way I understood it. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The truth is that they moved the lines so that the neighbors will not be able to petition against the project.

Basically, they are circumventing the rights of the people.

I see... Sorry, I'll stay out of it. Like I said it doesn't affect me, hopefully those who it does affect will make their stand with or without the petition abilities.

my2cents wrote:

There are literaly thousands of acres of land in Ellis County where nobody lives. Why can't a project be place in these areas?

They can, but I have to assume someone got the deals made first and didn't offer those 100 families a suitable piece of the pie. The only places in the county where nobody lives are the untilled areas justoo spoke of being needed for wildlife habitat. You can't look at sparing wildlife and not put these near someones homes.

I expect the one proposed in the northern part of the county might make it. Most of the landowners in the area will also profit so there won't be 100 families pissing about those other guys making all the money at their expense.

Ratzilla wrote:

The only places in the county where nobody lives are the untilled areas justoo spoke of being needed for wildlife habitat.

While my spouse and I were driving around we noticed there is a rather large amount of land over in the southeast part of Ellis County, by Victoria, that is mostly all tilled land. This is over 5 square miles of tilled land where nobody lives there is also no livestock (that we saw) around. I would imagine that this is because there is no underground water in that part of the Ellis County. What about this part of the county?

It's all about the $$.

Justoo wrote:

The truth is that they moved the lines so that the neighbors will not be able to petition against the project.

Basically, they are circumventing the rights of the people.

I find that hysterical. Kind of serves them right I think.

So, people invading (who consume energy), is ok, but turbines (which create energy) are bad?

Denying people their rights is bad.

So is denying the prairie chickens rights.

Why is the greed of a few more important than the rights of others?

my2cents wrote:

Why is the greed of a few more important than the rights of others?

Do prairie Chickens have rights?

I believe the have the right to breed.

Houses don't bother or displace them?

Are you refering to the houses in the area that objected to the project?

Any house. You said they will not roost around tall structures. Is a house too tall?