Something I warned about windfarms, now reality

[Swimmy]

Windfarm controversy and litigation

What these residents are complaining about are some of the reasons I oppose wind farms. Yet people told me to stfu and shove my nimby bs up my ass. Hope those people are some of the ones now finding out I was right.

[firstamendment]

How can the concrete company legally go after the landowners when the landowners are not the ones who contracted for the concrete in the first place? Something is not right here.

BTW, since when do liens appear on a credit report? The lien is placed on the deed to the property not on a credit report. Something is fishy in this story.

[Swimmy]

It would depend on the contracts and the property easements granted. Something is fishy, but I suppose it was part of the backdoor plan.

How it shows up on a credit report, I dunno. I imagine it would have something to do with not paying a debt, and the credit report company searching for just those items. Otherwise, you got me.

[firstamendment]

The landowners were never obtaining credit or debt for the concrete so I am at a loss on how anything would appear on the credit report. Realistically, liens are placed against assets and assets do not appear on credit reports. Sure, the finance company that you have a car loan with appears, but that is only record of the financial transactions, not the actual lien nor the actual vehicle the loan is for. The lien appears on the title to the car.

This is very strange.

[JGRobinson]

I think this story is less about windmills and more about good business practices which neither of these companies seems to be using. In the end, the local authorities seemed to have failed to protect the local taxpayers and homeowners. After the fact, its tough to undo the bad things that have been done!

You can own the land you bought and pay taxes on but you cannot own a view of someone elses land. A buddy of mine bought a cabin on the edge of the state-land near Brookfield, very isolated, quiet and not too much human sprawl. Within a year, his neighbor leased a piece less than 300' from his front door to a Cellular Tower Company. Up it went, Jim had no say about it! He does not own that land, therefore he cannot control the legal use of it. It sucks but thats life!

The windmills will not stop, we must become better at overseeing the development of the projects.

[virgilgal]

I agree JGR! Good business (and safety) practices are exactly the issue. This is probably true for the nuclear industry offshore drilling and fracking. All aspects of such have to be dealt with with an eye to the people, the water table, roads, and general quality of life for all living things. This is common sense plus oversight and it never ceases to amaze me that it is neglected over and over again!
My friends bought some land down the road a few years ago. The people who sold the other half of the top of their hill never considered that someone might build 700' off the road in order the catch the views. My friends are, of course, all of the hearty and adventuresome type and when they captured the sunset they took it from their neighbors! The neighbors built a new barn to house their $75,000 tractor with what they sold the land for. Seems like a fair trade, right?!

[Swimmy]

Actually, there is a set of case law out there where you can force someone to change the use of their land if it interferes with your use and enjoyment. And, there is also nuisance law which could also affect the longevity of the wind farms. My main opposition to them is that they are not a viable alternative to fossil fuels. To have wind farm energy production take over 20% of our energy production, you'd need a wind farm the size of Maine, with a processing plant the size of Rhodes Island.

[denise]

I think the wind farms are butt ugly. They didn't seem bad at first when they went up in Lowville, but go up to Cape Vincent at the St. Lawrence River some time & take a look. Effing awful. They've got to be bad for the bird & fish population.

[firstamendment]

No they are not an alternative, swimmy. I don't think anyone ever planned them to be. But they will help to supplement the current electrical supply and possibly lessen some of the dependence on fossil fuels. Wind energy is too unpredictable that it could be the main source of electricity production. But I see it like this. Wind energy is out there roaming free, why not harness some of it?

[JGRobinson]

I dont see wind as "The Solution" just a smaller part of an overall huge NRG Policy. We need to have it all or find those illusive magical Di-Lithium Chrystals that Mr Scott used to speak about on the Enterprise.

Fact is that even with the NRG conservation, pigtail CFL's and Insulation in our homes, we will need up to 40% more NRG in 25 years than we currently produce. That must come from somewhere.

It does not matter what form I mention, there will be 50 people against it for every 10 that support development publicly. Those numbers are not real, most people don't participate in the conversation until they see a 250' tower being erected in their back yard or their Electric provider raises their rates.

We are already conserving like never before, the law of diminishing returns is in effect with that one already. I guess my question would be off topic but it must be asked-

If we shouldn't Drill for Oil, Frack for NG, Burn Coal or use Uranium to create steam, Spin Hydro Turbines, or have giant fields of solar panels or ridges covered with Windmills. Where do we think we are going to get the NRG to replace all these bad things?

[clarencebunsen]

I think that pretty much nails it JGR, all methods of generating electricity have some negative impacts. (Actually all human activity has some negative impact; getting burried disturbs several square feet of topsoil, not getting burried releases green houses gasses.)

Yet I can't remember meeting anyone who isn't willing to turn on a light or a computer and use electricity generated in someone else's backyard and complain that National Grid charges to transport that electricity from that backyard to theirs.

Some time ago Dave & I discovered that each of us still had our 1970's era copy of Mother Earth's Handbook of Home Made Power on our bookshelves. JGR, it wouldn't surprise me if you had read it as well. Even if one were to take that book to heart and use your hydro powered ram to pressurize the canisters of methane (generated from the manure from your sheep, goats & chickens) used to power your 1965 Beetle towing the mobile produce stand from which you sell your organic eggs, cheese and sweaters; someone would still complain that your chickens are in invasive species eating insects necessary to pollinate wild flowers.

[Swimmy]

Apr 14, 2011 8:33:03 GMT -5 firstamendment said:

No they are not an alternative, swimmy. I don't think anyone ever planned them to be. But they will help to supplement the current electrical supply and possibly lessen some of the dependence on fossil fuels. Wind energy is too unpredictable that it could be the main source of electricity production. But I see it like this. Wind energy is out there roaming free, why not harness some of it?

Fair enough. But put them some place less intrusive, like outside shipping lanes in the North Atlantic, where the wind is more prevalent all the time. There are studies about the harmful effects these windmills have on the environment on land. Build them high enough out of the ocean, and then you've resolved a lot of the concerns.

I'd rather see the money invested in solar energy. At least with that, you can place solar panels on already existing infrastructure with minimal intrusion into the environment. As solar energy technology improves, eventually it could replace all our energy needs for centuries to come. The amount of energy we receive from the sun in one day is enough to power human energy needs for a few weeks (or some ungodly huge ratio).

Alternatively, nuclear fusion should also be more researched. With a reliable fusion reactor, we would have a limitless supply of energy. Of course, big oil (namely OPEC) would pay larger dollars to keep this off the market...

[clarencebunsen]

If you assume that the average US household uses about 10,000kWH/year and that the average solar radion received in the US is about 4.5kWH/ sq. meter/day and an average conversion efficiency of 10%, I come up with the need for a south facing array of about 24' x 26' per household. A large but not impossible size. You would need to keep it dust and snow free or your efficiency would drop a lot.

Office buildings and factories would be tougher and of course there is the problem if your neighbor's trees or house shade your panels.

[firstamendment]

Bottom line here I think we all agree, we need better and more sources of energy production. I don't think, and again I think we all agree, there isn' t going to be one single source to satisfy demand. It is going to require many different sources, all of which combine to form a comprehensive energy plan. Solar is free energy out for the taking. Wind as well. I think it would be great if I could implement both at my house. Matter of fact, if more houses utilized alternate sources to suppliment their energy usage, there would be less demand on the current grid.

[JGRobinson]

Swimmy, solar wont cut it in NY, the sun shines 2 days out of 20. Harbor Windmills upset the Kennedy's (Teds dead, NBD, maybe they should try again). Fusions a great option once we can safely sustain a reaction but until then we have to do something. I just think time is running out for us. At 5.00 a gallon for gas, wind NRG is starting to become more reasonable.