The perils associated with them, including, but not limited to: the total extinction of all bird species, disruption of caribou migration routes, fatal tinnitus, hypnotically-induced mass murders, completely altered weather patterns, loss of habitat for the endangered Feinglobin's pink darter, famine due to loss of crop land, and, perhaps most importantly, a cut in the demand for fossil fuels, have all been well-documented here and in other places. They need not be reiterated at this time. What I am wondering is: does anyone here have some on their property?

Nope not yet.

There was talk several years ago.

About 30 miles north they put up a bunch and the pigs don't seem to care that they are there.

But it would be nice to get them monthly checks.

John, the wind generators are all around us, the money would come in handy, I don't want the farm chopped up, and don't want to farm around one. Unless we fenced around them, I don't see how we could run cows out in winter.

The cows won't hurt them none.

There is a stand up around Macado TX.and they raise cotton and plant wheat in winter,run cows till they need to come off.

It is dryland farming.

The cattle, and the windmills would go well together. The people that keep tabs would not like gates.

Out here they get used to them pretty quick.

Course, I've not been asked.

I think they’re a fuggin blight on the landscape. Here they seem to want to locate them along the shores of the Great Lakes.

Why wouldn’t they put them in the cities where they can use the power? Plus, cities structurally generate wind.

Makes you wonder if there isn’t something to the claims about them if they don’t want them in populated areas.

You really can't figure out why is not the practice to locate utility scale wind turbines in dense urban areas?

The thing about all real-estate, the are not making any more of it.

Everything above the ground comes out of the ground.

Two mechanics trapped. Final hug.

The blades shed ice after periods of inactivity and appropriate weather conditions for ice build up. Turbines only run under a range of ideal conditions—conditions for which the installation was designed. They shut down when conditions either fail to meet minimums or exceed maximums and are restarted again when within design parameters.

I used to acquire the leases for them. The cattle won’t hurt them, the wildlife adjusts rather quickly after construction is finished. The land out of production averages less than an acre per turbine.

They used to be a pretty easy lease to acquire but as more were built peoples tolerances for them diminished. So payments went up or projects were abandoned because of lack of participation.

I don’t particularly care for them anymore to be completely honest.

Bat kill is the only significant wildlife issue that I'm aware of.

They kill birds too. Solar panels are better, but are better in the southwest US where it is mostly dry and doesn't rain as much. Plain states are good, however they kills the migratory birds. Nuclear power is the only real option we have for massive 24/7 power production. They are now making smaller, self contained, modular nuclear power plants that will not melt down, and don't need much water to cool down. Some use Thorium instead of Uranium or Plutonium. Thorium breaks down to safe levels after use in a short period of time vs a long time for the other two. Thorium is more plentiful and less radioactive. Thorium also cannot be made into bombs. Solar and wind do better for small scale homestead use, or supplemental use for suburbs.

Could open a Chinese restaurant nearby...

‘Splain it to me, then. Why can’t they be put on the top of skyscrapers?

No and no.

Never any wind here

it sucks more than it blows

Nuclear is cleaner and cheaper.

I'm familiar with (PBMR) Pebble Bed Modular Reactors. I invested in Excelon when they secured the technology in early 2001. It made lots of sense at the time, but proved to be way ahead of public sentiment in the States.

Just more subsidized greenie bull shidt like ethanol.

I'm for coal and nukes.

This is the truth. So many installations were only economically viable when subsidized by Obama era stimulus in the form of the ARRA coupled with various state incentives.

They’re eye pollution.

Exactamundo.And yeah, we don't know what to do with the waste, but you can run ALL of the country's energy needs with them and store the resultant waste in 10 acres...we can figure out what to do with it later. You don't have to mine for more stuff if you use breeder reactors .

Instead we strip mine, we build dams and screw up rivers, and we put those damn not-cost-effective turbines as eyesores on the land.

A lot of this country was built on cheap energy, and in nuclear power we have it handed to us on a silver platter...and refuse to take it...

Got two on in laws pasture in north Oklahoma. Other than a visual eye sore, can’t say they bother any critters. Maybe some flying species get whacked, but I’m not there enough to know about that.

Wait! An actual reply to the original question!? Thank you!

My back ground is in power plant managment. For most areas in the country there would not be a single wind turbine built if not for subsidies. Places like parts of Texas and Wyoming are exceptions. The company I previously worked for lost money on every wind turbine they owned, but was forced into building them to meet renewable energy mandates.

Anyone who has turbines is a gullible twit, or lives in a state governed by same.

Wind, like solar, can't provide reliable base load, it can only be supplemental until such time efficient and cost-effective, yet still effing HUGE banks of batteries become viable, and that last is a LONG way off.

Even worse, when it's 90 below and dark, and you really need the lights to come on -- the wind doesn't blow.

Even worse, if there ever is enough collective stupidity, and wind is "built out," I did some calculations and just to replace Colstrip would require covering the Dakotas and half of Montana with fans, and THAT was generous because I pretended the duty cycle would be consistent 24 hours a day, calm somewhere, blowing elsewhere, but even across four states, sometimes, everything is either off line, or spinning like crazy.

If the technology paid for itself and was viable in terms of duty cycle/output, I'd support it. But honestly, wind and solar are delusional wastes of resources.

Could be a first AND last!

Yes, but we were here, and we saw it happen!

What drives me nuts, is the federal funds that get used for a fraudulent cause. They provide nothing. Vast majority have no cables running power anywhere worthwhile.

There is quite a few of them in Eastern WA and most of the time when I drive past the turbines about half aren't running. Broke down, shut down? Seems pretty inefficient if they are supposed to be operating, despite being the eye-sore they are.

They offered to lease my South Texas ranch. It was eight dollars an acre if I remember correctly. I was told windmills pay 5-15.000 a year depending on size.

I didn't go for it. They had a 40 page contract. My attorney said anybody who signed it had to be nuts. It was for 40 years and you basically gave them control of your property. Wasn't worth the eyesore to me.

Where is Captain Kurk when you need a good battery?

What the hell is this? Am I on the wrong forum?

An actual reply to the original question has gotta be a thread killer for sure!

I like em.

We have the place leased.

Respectfully, can you please elaborate?

The wind gen need batteries to store the power.