A farm went up in our area recently. None of these concerns were show stoppers actually. Any farmer would be happy to farm around them if the price is right.
The wake issue means no field would ever have more than one or two turbines. Maximum. The problems accrue mainly from the way revenue is shared. Most fields in a wind farm project have no towers at all. You sign on, and if they choose your land for a tower, you get more money. If not, you receive a smaller amount that might cover taxes on the ground, but not much more. Many people would consider the no tower option a win. You give up some development rights you would probably never otherwise use, and they might need access to bury a power line across your field, or need to build a road across, but all these features are compensated at specified rates per acre. All cleanup procedures and removal criteria are specified in the lease in the event the turbines are not used. Older leases had issues because certain towers were preferentially shut down when not needed, so if the agreement was revenue tied to a certain turbine, and yours was shut down all the time when your neighbors was operating, you would feel unfairly treated. So there are all sorts of ways a person might feel it was a good or a bad thing. South Dakota, incidentally, prohibits utilities from purchasing power from individuals, which is such a rigged game it is laughable. But I would say these and similar concerns take priority over whether wind power is green or well founded or not in theory. Land owners will take the money if the deal is felt to be fair. If someone else thinks they are eyesores or difficult to remove, or thinks hurting the productivity of the land is somehow problematic, then too bad. The leases are a bit complex and it is a caveat emptor, long term deal, but that is no different than mineral development rights contracts have ever been. On Aug 9, 2018 5:37 PM, "Curley McLain via Mercedes" <mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote: Some of it depends on the care taken in installation. (Generally little to none.) The soil where the concrete is poured for the foundation can never be restored to the same productivity, assuming the electric company would actually remove the tower and the concrete. The soil compacted by the construction will take decades to return to the original productivity. If you drive your pickup across a field today, next year the tracks will be seen in the field map as lower yield. Yes, that is how accurate the current precision farming apps are. The towers abandoned by HELCO about 20 years ago are still there. Ugly, rusty, and unused. They cost too much to take down to cover it by the scrap value. I don't know the current base dimensions. Somewhere around 300 to 400 square feet per tower, I'd guess. Each tower probably lowers the productivity on about an acre, I'd guess, allowing for all the truck and crane traffic. multiply that by thousands of towers, and you start to get the picture. Curt Raymond wrote: > How much farmland is ruined by a wind turbine? Does corn care about > sharing the fields? Is it worse than a cell tower? > > Curt _______________________________________ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com _______________________________________ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
