Pantagraph.com | News | Wind farm plan OK’d for El Paso

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

LET R BLOW!!!!!!!! wrote on Aug 16, 2007 9:46 PM:

" Let the Mills BLOW!!!! I dont think they are any louder then our great so called MAYORS Harley Davidson Motor Cycle that he cruises around town and we all have to listen to. Thought he knew all about these mills,,,showed him NOT, like alot of other things around our town,,,,but dont blame me I voted for MOOL!!!! "

RE:FUUUUNNNY wrote on Aug 16, 2007 6:28 PM:

" Just because you live in town and don't know squat about the wind farms dosn't mean that others haven't been researching these useless hunks of metal and looking out for the future of central Illinois. I for one have been following the wind farm debates for almost a year now so if you want to call me a specialist go for it! "

FUUUUNNNY wrote on Aug 16, 2007 4:36 PM:

" Love it. I love all the comments made against the mills. I did not know you all had done such in depth research on them. Glad to know you are all specialists....or did you just stay at a Holiday Inn. "

To: "Ha ha" wrote on Aug 16, 2007 3:05 PM:

" Our children will pay and pay DEARLY!! How much does it cost today to put one of these towers up? How much do you think it will cost in the future to tear one down????? YOu have 500 feet of verticle steel to remove and enough concrete to pour new foundations for all El Paso. Do you think that the $8,000 that they promised is going to cover that??? (If the money will be there because they ALWAYS deliver on thier promises) Wake up, buddy!! "

Curious George and the high tension wire wrote on Aug 16, 2007 3:00 PM:

" Wind good. Nuclear power station safety pop off valve HOT!!!! "

Dear "To George" wrote on Aug 16, 2007 2:42 PM:

" Do you know what it takes to rezone agriculture land into residental or commerical? Money and a meeting, thats it! However, I have to admit I am torn. As a future land owner (inheritance), I hate to see the farmland around me disappear under all of these homes. But on the other hand, when bloomington finally makes out to me, I could always sell the land and retire to someplace a lot warmer, less corupt and less restrictive to individual freedom than Illinois, perhaps Cuba..haha "

You are right about one thing. NOBODY will want to live under the turbines. wrote on Aug 16, 2007 2:29 PM:

" Whats the difference between God and Hilldweller? God knows hes not Hilldweller. Speak for yourself. "

I Never Heard Nu-thing wrote on Aug 16, 2007 1:42 PM:

" Noise problems don't occur under a turbine. That's why the wind company reps are so eager to have all their cronies say, "er.....ah....I stood dir-actly underneath the darned thang and I never heerd a thing!" That's because the noise emits out to a farther distance away where the noise violations and the complaints occur. They occur at night when the ground surface winds are calm and the higher up winds have the turbines turning. There is no background wind noise at ground level to mask the noise these monsters are making. That's why all the noise studies to pass these things occur at a 22 mph wind - at that wind level, you won't hear anything but the wind itself. Another way to "skewer" a result. "

Adjusted Assessments wrote on Aug 16, 2007 1:33 PM:

" Check out the clause inserted in the PILOT or assessment. The assessment amount paid will be "adjusted" for any turbine not operating. When questioned about individual lightning strikes taking out one or two towers, Ms. Davies waved her hand and explained it all away by saying that was just to protect the company in case a tornado took out the whole farm. But that's not what the language in the contract says - it says adjusted for any turbine not operating. They have not plans to repair, to replace, or to remove. "

Act of God Will Only Bring the Towers Down wrote on Aug 16, 2007 1:31 PM:

" The mythical decommissioning plan, a figment of the wind companies' imaginations, would not remove the wiring or anything subsoil down farther than a few feet. That leaves nearly all of the 49 concrete trucks of concrete in the ground forever, preventing any future use of the land. It would require the return of those six ton cranes, creating the same amount of damage over the same roads. Check crane cost and availability in Illinois. Testimony at El Paso said the crane rental cost alone would take up most all of the "bond" money for decommissioning. It's just not real folks. But the rusting hulk of lightning damaged blades and the tons of concrete left behind are. "

To "Wonder" wrote on Aug 16, 2007 1:29 PM:

" I own farmground there and declined the opportunity to lease my land. Some things are more important than money. "

Towers Maim Landscape Forever wrote on Aug 16, 2007 1:27 PM:

" At least subdivision building requires following the rules. It would require a zoning hearing to rezone from Ag to Residential. By changing zoning laws to put this under Special Use, it bypasses all the laws. The wind companies will not take down the turbines. Ask them where this has been done before. Davies testified at El Paso the decommissioning could be triggered by company default, in which case the county would be responsible. Read the decommissioning - $92,000 per turbine if a certain amount of gravel reclaimed, resold and hauled to a site less than 25 miles away. But - there is no site within 25 miles. And, under the LLC, there will be no company to come back to for the money or to enforce it. Whey do you think they only lease the land, don't purchase it? No liability. "

To Wonder: wrote on Aug 16, 2007 12:26 PM:

" My family and I own and farm our own land. We were asked to put mills on our land and said no. We do not want them. We believe the promises of the wind companies are too good to be true and we firmly believe the construction of windmills on agricultural land is poor land stewardship. "

Iguchi wrote on Aug 16, 2007 11:38 AM:

" Well, George you hit a sore thumb didn't you. I agree with you, seems like it is much better to put in a subdivision to make the city boy's propert value go up is much better than you putting up a mill. THey keep saying that it will bring down their property value and that they have proof of it. I have not seen that proof either G. "

Wonder wrote on Aug 16, 2007 11:35 AM:

" Howow many of you that are against the mills actually live and own their farm ground? Seems like those that are for it are those that own their land, and those against don't own any acreage other than the 1 they bought. Just curious is all "

Ha ha wrote on Aug 16, 2007 11:32 AM:

" Tree hugger. From the meeting I attended, the companies will pay for taking these mills down so why would my children have to pay for it? And these wont work because there is not wind? And when I drive by the other farms, and look out my window... the windmill is moving because..... of the cell phone tower down the road? "

George wrote on Aug 16, 2007 11:28 AM:

" Hey Hill, you are right about one thing, no one will live UNDER a mill. Have you not read the lease or even attended a meeting? "

George wrote on Aug 16, 2007 11:18 AM:

" And the subdivisions wont take away agricultural land? Now that is rich. "

Wind Increases our Foreign Dependence wrote on Aug 16, 2007 11:14 AM:

" Building a wind farm will only INCREASE our dependence on foreign energy. Not only does it not DECREASE our dependence on foreign OIL, it puts another MAJOR portion of our country's energy needs, ELECTRICITY, under foreign ownership as well. It's a huge step backwards in trying to decrease our country's dependence on other countries for our energy needs. How many times did the wind companies have to repeat this line to make you believe it? "

Rod's Backyard wrote on Aug 16, 2007 11:11 AM:

" Blame Rod and Emil - they had the Illinois Commerce Commission mandate a renewables portfolio - forcing the utilities to buy a certain portion of wind energy - they call it nice things like Diversifying Energy sources in the latest Corn Belt Energy mailing - that forces the cost up. We have been paying to upgrade the transmission lines BEFORE this monsters are built ever since the rate freeze was lifted beginning in 2007. But they are clever at NEVER using the word WIND - Diversifying, Increased Delivery Costs, Increased Cost to Purchase Electricity, etc. It is a SHAM! The great thing, is the average citizen doesn't even realize he's already paying for it when he mails his check in with his utility bill every month. "

London Bridge Is Falling Down wrote on Aug 16, 2007 11:06 AM:

" No erosion problems? Read the application submitted late to avoid public scrutiny. THREE BRIDGES unable to handle the weight so they are going to build an alternative bridge right next to it. I'm thinking that means a culvert and tons of gravel dumped right into the waterway those bridges are crossing. What a nightmare first heavy rain - what a nightmare to clean up downstream. "

Smarter than most wrote on Aug 16, 2007 11:04 AM:

" I'm gonna put one of them there turbines on my roof. Then we'll see who controls the POWER!!!!! Ain't nobody gonna hold me down. Fight "da man"! Viva La Revolution! "

Double My Bill Please wrote on Aug 16, 2007 11:04 AM:

" Wind energy costs SEVEN CENTS/kWh to produce. Coal is around 4.5 and nuclear 4. Great deal. Without the massive government subsidies, there would be NO wind industry because it is neither practical, efficient or profitable. The massively expensive costs to upgrade the transmission lines are conveniently left out of the cost analysis. Wind industry says don't worry, that's the utilities problem. But it's our problem, because the utilities pass that cost along to us. When they say their cost of electricity has increased and their bills reflect that beginning in 2007, included in that is the increased cost of being forced to by wind power by renewable portfolio standards the state imposed on them. "

Zero Homes Powered by Wind wrote on Aug 16, 2007 10:59 AM:

" A wind turbine can produce enough power for ZERO homes without traditional backup sources of energy. Because it is so unreliable and so hard to regulate the grid once it is added to it, it makes it MORE likely, not less likely, that we will have more brownouts and blackouts. While industry advocates boast about a 35% functioning rate, that is a national average, including places where there are strong winds. The 2005 Energy Department figures show both Crescent Ridge and Mendota Hills operating at under 20%. And, in the summer, when we need and use more power, they operate at under 10%, 9.2% to be exact. "

To JD wrote on Aug 16, 2007 10:58 AM:

" What are nuk plants. Is it like a corn or bean plant. What kind of fruit/veggie can you harvest from them. I would love to plant a few acres if you could give me some info on this new, awesome crop! "

Only Windy in Chicago wrote on Aug 16, 2007 10:56 AM:

" Illinois is NOT windy enough to make these profitable. It is listed only as a TWO on a scale of 1-6 for potential wind resources, Six being the best. Why do you think the meterological tower data is not released to the public for scrutiny? "

Nuclear Gives Us Power wrote on Aug 16, 2007 10:54 AM:

" Yes - they give us proven reliable energy. And while all energy is subsidized, the most inefficient wind energy is subsidized at a rate of something like five times higher than other energies. "

to JD wrote on Aug 16, 2007 10:29 AM:

" would you nather put more nuk plants? "

We're Already Paying wrote on Aug 16, 2007 10:16 AM:

" Taxpayers are paying for the federal subsidies. Local utility rate payers have been paying the increased cost to upgrade the transmission lines on their power bills since January of 2007. It's called Transmission Delivery Charges....it's WIND! The Illinois Commerce Commission mandated it and allowed the utilities cost recovery if they would stop fighting them on it. "

Local Governments Pay wrote on Aug 16, 2007 10:14 AM:

" The companies operate under a shell corporation, or LLC, specific to each project. That way, when all the problems surface, they have left no money in that specific LLC to pay, so there is no one to go after and the financial interests of the companies fronting these things are protected. Plus, they are sold every three years, making it more and more difficult to determine who has responsbility. It's set up this way - ultimately, the local government will be responsible to pay the bills and clean up the mess left behind. "

Farmer wrote on Aug 16, 2007 10:11 AM:

" Hello??? It's a wind farm. If we quit building all these turbines to make the wind, it wouldn't be so windy all the time. I think some of you people need to go back to school. "

Bonds wrote on Aug 16, 2007 10:00 AM:

" Typically a project like this includes a bond to cover any removal or demolition costs. I would rather have trees then wind towers, however; to reduce our fossil fuel reliance, we will need to use all energy sources. "

One Turbine...... wrote on Aug 16, 2007 9:33 AM:

" is SUPOSE to produce enough energy for 300 homes BUT turbines are 9% efficiant and that is if there is enough wind for them, so on a good day one turbine COULD produce enough energy for no more than 30 homes!!! I can't wait until all of central Illinois is cover by these giant eyes soars. Hey heres an idea why not use the Illinois river for hydro power, instead of tearing up roads and fields and getting nothing in return! Before you suport the wind farms maybe you should learn at least a little about them. "

Hey, George... wrote on Aug 16, 2007 9:28 AM:

" We don't use the wind for energy because IT DOESN'T WORK!!! This "free" energy has already and will continue to cost MUCH more to harness than the traditional power. The ONLY reason we see them going up now is so the tax credits can be used (once again, our money). I am tired of closed-minded tree-huggers like you spending my money for fantasy like these wind farms. The final slap in the face will come to our children when they are forced to pay for the removal of these eyesores because you will not find the energy companies in business anymore to honor the contracts. And, they paid, and paid, and paid only to see their power grid get weaker and weaker, and weaker until it finally ground to a halt. Thank you George! "

Oh Please Stop wrote on Aug 16, 2007 9:09 AM:

" thinking this has ANYTHING to do with the Middle East. This is about electricity. If you want to personally affect our dependence oil start traveling at the speed limit. "

Wind Talker wrote on Aug 16, 2007 9:08 AM:

" a 1.5 MW turbine provides enough electricity to power 300 typical homes "

Breeze wrote on Aug 16, 2007 9:06 AM:

" But just think how much cooler it will be in that area, they turbines are like large fans..it should save some on cooling their homes.... "

Hilldweller wrote on Aug 16, 2007 9:05 AM:

" To George: You are right about one thing. NOBODY will want to live under the turbines. That supports the argument that residential property values will be affected . . . one of the reasons to deny the special use. However, I hardly think there is an invasion of 66 homes being proposed for El Paso. Additionally, the planning commission should address the orderly development of residential development. This is a conversion from AG to INDUSTRIAL cleverly disguised as a Special Use in an AG district. "

To out of the area wrote on Aug 16, 2007 8:53 AM:

" The reason you don't get to "use" the power generated is because you did not spend money to build it. Chicago is paying for the power. I can see the farm from my front porch and enjoy it. At least we aren't sending money to terrorist states in the middle east for that power, at least we aren't creating air polution and stripping natural resources out of the earth, at least we aren't creating nuclear waste. Get real. "

To George wrote on Aug 16, 2007 8:06 AM:

" Take down your straw man. The issue is not turbines vs. subdivisions. The issue is turbines vs. leaving agricultural-zoned land as agricultural. "

SH wrote on Aug 16, 2007 7:51 AM:

" CAN'T BE GOOD IF AMEREN IS INVOLVED. DOESN'T MATTER IF IT IS "UPGRADING" LINES "

Great News El Paso! wrote on Aug 16, 2007 7:45 AM:

" This is so wonderful, I think I'll celebrate by turning on a few extra lights...Maybe when the oil pipeline comes through, I'll celebrate by buying a SUV! "

Question wrote on Aug 16, 2007 7:40 AM:

" Does anyone know how many homes 1 turbine provides energy for? "

to:Sick of Paying for Spain's Profits wrote on Aug 16, 2007 7:37 AM:

" if you would buy Navitas Energy than you could pick where the profits would go. it is just that easy, pull out your check book and put all the 0 behind the 9 and it will be yours. "

Wat Tyler wrote on Aug 16, 2007 7:25 AM:

" Answer to question #1 None. Taxpayers don't pay for transmission up grades. Rate payers do. But, to the best of my knowledge, there have been no transmission upgrades for wind generation. yet. Answer to question #2. Very Little. The real question is why is this construction singled out? Does the Normal community High School have to perform annual soil inspections? Do all of those churches and subdivisions building out in the corn fields have to submit annual soil inspections? Some body on the zoning board got his or her pet peeve scratched by requiring this unnecessary, but reasonable sounding requirement added. I would hope that the same zoning board will have the integrity to require all future construction within the area of their responsibility to conduct the exact same test and to the exact same standards, but I don't expect they will. People being people, as they are. "

Re: Sick of Paying for Spain's Profits wrote on Aug 16, 2007 7:15 AM:

" At least Spain is putting them up I don't see American companies lining up to start putting up wind towers. If you don't like them protest them then maybe they will take them down. Then the power companies will have brown outs and black outs since they cannot produce enough power. Eventually will lead to the power company building a Nuclear or coal facility where the tower you had removed. Then we will be reading posting complaining about the pollution they produce. "

Ben Dover wrote on Aug 16, 2007 6:58 AM:

" Another case of big companies making huge money at the expense of the little guy. The county apparently does not have enough sense to look past the smoke and mirrors. "

woo hoo wrote on Aug 16, 2007 6:57 AM:

" i love it when we flip the middle east the bird! "

George wrote on Aug 16, 2007 6:52 AM:

" Hey flood, maybe you should read the lease of one of those mills going up. Now the BIG issue is erosion? What about all those people tearing down the trees, just to build commercial development or more homes... wait... that is for the good I forget that now and again. Wait this brings light pollution... like the new subdivisions dont...but that is good. Wait it brings noise.... like all those streets and higways dont... but one argued..."in the night you can still hear the mills.. Listen I grew up on a farm, 3 miles from 55. I could hear the traffic.... big deal.... I do not think the mills will EVER be that loud. but wait.. it sends off electro magnetic energy... yea and the cell towers, electrical towers, etc dont. Get real people, we have to do something.........why not use the wind for energy. "

Woodford Pundit wrote on Aug 16, 2007 6:46 AM:

" I just returned from Des Moines. Iowa is also heavily invested in wind, although their "favorable" sites are many times fewer than we have in Illinois. Anyway, they are putting in a turbine plant in 2009. I'm hoping future Illinois projects will purchase american turbines from this or other plants in the U.S. "

Out of the area wrote on Aug 16, 2007 5:47 AM:

" And just think, the wind farms around LeRoy is supplying energy for the Chicago area. At least if we have to look at them, we should get some of the use..... "

JD wrote on Aug 16, 2007 3:04 AM:

" The way they are wanting to build wind farms in this area, you will soon not be able to hear the birds over the creaking of the turbines. I am all about alternative power, but there just seems to be too many going up in this area. "

Flood and Mud wrote on Aug 15, 2007 11:55 PM:

" How considerate of them - they're going to agree to an annual soil erosion inspection. How much damage will be done in the space of that one year? And what will they do about it when it occurs? Oh, wait that's not in the contract. All that's in the contract will be Ms. Davies agreeing to an inspection - performed by her own people, I presume. "

Sick of Paying for Spain's Profits wrote on Aug 15, 2007 11:37 PM:

" Just how much have the taxpayers already paid for this wind farm in the form of higher electric bills to upgrade those transmission lines? Why is this figure not figured into the cost for this "free wind"? Why is the profit going directly to Spain? "

Ads by Yahoo!

El Paso Homes For Sale

Bartels L.LC. Wind Farm Attorney Midwest

DIRECTV Official Site: Illinois