Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Rate the new mayoral campaign ads
Next Post: Subscribers Only - Supplement to today’s edition and more items
Posted in:
In the fight against climate change, national goals are facing local resistance. [Piatt County, Illinois] scheduled 19 nights of meetings to debate one wind farm [in Monticello]. […]
In the fight against global warming, the federal government is pumping a record $370 billion into clean energy, President Biden wants the nation’s electricity to be 100 percent carbon-free by 2035, and many states and utilities plan to ramp up wind and solar power.
But while policymakers may set lofty goals, the future of the American power grid is in fact being determined in town halls, county courthouses and community buildings across the country. […]
In Piatt County, population 16,000, the project at issue is Goose Creek Wind, which has been proposed by Apex Clean Energy, a developer of wind and solar farms based in Virginia. Apex spent years negotiating leases with 151 local landowners and trying to win over the community, donating to the 4-H Club and a mental health center. […]
The website of a group called Save Piatt County!, which opposes the project, is rife with fallacies about renewable energy and inaccuracies about climate science. On Facebook pages, residents opposed to the project shared negative stories about wind power, following a playbook that has been honed in recent years by anti-wind activists, some of whom have ties to the fossil fuel industry. The organizers of the website and Facebook groups did not reply to requests for comment. […]
A few miles down the road is Gallagher Farms, another multigenerational operation. Like Mr. Bragg, Ms. Gallagher, 34, believes in climate change. She has invested in cover crops, which absorb carbon and lock it away in the soil, and other regenerative agriculture practices.
But Ms. Gallagher is opposed to the project. The aerial seeding of cover crops will cost more with wind turbines nearby and make it harder for her to sustainably farm. The use of heavy equipment to install turbines can disrupt drainage patterns in agricultural land, and Ms. Gallagher believes her farm will suffer.
The entire article is worth a read.
* From the Illinois Environmental Council…
The General Assembly must take swift legislative action to defend CEJA and stop these bad-faith attack campaigns before it’s too late. There is a bill before the legislature during this “lame duck” session, which starts today.
Please help us build support to end these bans by asking your legislators to support legislation that does the following:
• removes overburdensome local bans and siting regulations
• keeps intact and prioritizes protections for endangered species and natural areas
• encourages good conservation practices at utility-scale clean energy sites
The latest bill draft I have is here. From the fact sheet…
At Least 15 Counties have Effectively Banned or Significantly Hindered Renwables
This ordinance adopted by the Moultrie County Board on May 12, 2022 killed at least two wind projects in the planning stages and prevents others from even being contemplated.
A letter from a Moultrie County farm owner in support is here.
* The Question: Regardless of this particular bill, should there be statewide siting standards for wind and solar farms?
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 10:14 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Rate the new mayoral campaign ads
Next Post: Subscribers Only - Supplement to today’s edition and more items
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
This is critically important if we have any hope of moving forward with our energy transition. counties and even tiny municipalities currently have the power to bring projects to a grinding halt, at the expense of the property rights of the local landowners. We need uniform standards.
Comment by New Day Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 10:28 am
Local control gets complicated very quickly. Our ability to get carbon neutral shouldn’t be able to be prevented by the whims of local leaders, their superstitious attitudes, or their lack commitment to Scientific Theory. Their pockets are also much easier for fossil fuel interests to influence.
Comment by Candy Dogood Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 10:35 am
Is the carbon footprint that goes into constructing and installing a utility scale wind energy conversation system (a wind turbine) actually offset by the energy it creates? Think about all that goes into just one industrial sized turbine. Solar Energy and nuclear power make far for sense than wind energy, in my (somewhat informed) opinion.
As to the poll, those who are most affected by the negative impacts of wind systems should have a say in how they are sited in their communities.
Comment by Dr. Funk Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 10:42 am
I voted no. While Wind and Solar are worthy projects I don’t think we should override the will of the local communities. I suspect if we were talking about a coal power plant we wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss local concerns.
It may cost the generating company more time and expense to win over locals but those locals, IMHO, should still have a voice.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 10:43 am
Let’s not forget that the renewable energy industry is not light in the pocket books either. Corruption comes in many forms.
Comment by rtov Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 10:44 am
Almost every problem in Illinois seems to involve very parochial interests and local politicians with tiny fiefdoms standing in the way of any sort of widely adopted, coherent solutions.
Comment by Homebody Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 10:47 am
No on local control.
If the ag industry - one of the big groups that opposes lots of wind and solar projects - is fine with the Livestock Management Facilities Act (LMFA) to site smelly hog confinements and other livestock facilities with a lack of local control then these projects should be moving ahead with similar oversight.
Comment by Cool Papa Bell Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 10:50 am
Voted no. Let counties determine their own fate. Allowing the state to determine these things will inevitably lead to corruption MJM/ComEd style.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 10:55 am
There should be standards in place which take into consideration negative impacts to local communities, but which also take into consideration the larger public interest of getting renewable energy solutions implemented to reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
Someone’s farm troubles today and for the next few years matter, but so do the troubles their farm (and just about everyone) will incur in the future if climate change is not curbed.
Comment by Techie Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 10:56 am
The challenge is, as I see it, that it is often not the “will of the community” but a handful of NIMBY’s who speak the loudest. I voted yes.
Comment by G'Kar Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 10:56 am
@Mason born - The problem is that nut jobs are pressuring local leaders to override the rights of the property owners, based on facebook memes. Local school districts also stand to benefit from these projects which could lower property taxes.
Comment by KarateCorn Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 11:00 am
Voted NO. If you can’t control zoning in your own communities then you have lost one of your most vital rights.
Comment by Blue Dog Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 11:01 am
Voted no. Too late these things are already built. BTW how much has been collected to decommission this stuff when it fails?
Comment by Annonin' Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 11:02 am
=Let counties determine their own fate. Allowing the state to determine these things will inevitably lead to corruption=
LOL, you think county boards are less corrupt? Either willfully ignorant or naive.
These same small towns and counties talk about economic renewal and growth and then deny the very thing they claim to want. No wonder rural America is shrinking. Wind farms are fairly low impact in comparison to nukes and solar.
=Almost every problem in Illinois seems to involve very parochial interests and local politicians with tiny fiefdoms standing in the way of any sort of widely adopted, coherent solutions.=
Bingo. You sound like someone that has visited a local meeting or two.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 11:11 am
=Is the carbon footprint that goes into constructing and installing a utility scale wind energy conversation system (a wind turbine) actually offset by the energy it creates?=
Yes. It only takes about a year for the turbine to generate enough clean electricity to offset the footprint it’s production created.
As to the question, yes we should have uniform standards. The “negative impacts” in Piatt County are the same as in Sangamon county or wherever else. We have state goals to meet.
Comment by SWIL_Voter Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 11:13 am
It is easier for county boards if there are well-informed state standards to work from; any changes can then be advocated at the state level. In addition to the challenge of finding sufficient expertise at every county level, I’ve also noticed that when there is conflict at the local level, there is a tendency to seek to assign decision-making and responsibility elsewhere–to state or federal laws or agencies.
I also appreciate what Cool Papa Bell and G’Kar said; not having state standards allows a selective approach to NIMBY-ism.
Comment by Yooper in Diaspora Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 11:13 am
@ JS Mills - There is nothing low impact about wind farms. That is nonsense.
Comment by rtov Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 11:15 am
Yes. This will give counties the power to regulate siting in a progressive way without allowing political fear mongering to block renewables expansion.
I see Livestock Management Facilities Act mentioned. This proposed siting standard for wind/solar should be modeled for livestock. The LMFA currently gives zero control to counties for siting
Comment by StealYourFace Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 11:16 am
===There is nothing low impact about wind farms. That is nonsense.===
Example?
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 11:17 am
“There is nothing low impact about wind farms.”
My family has 2 turbines on our farmland. They could hardly have less of an impact than they do. They take up roughly an acre and we do nothing but receive an annual check
Comment by SWIL_Voter Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 11:18 am
These things are like an invasive species — heavy construction equipment starts rolling down country roads, turbines popping up, and they’re there to stay. If we’re going to place this burden on largely rural areas largely for the benefit of urban users, then at the very least there must be a strong element of local control over approval and siting.
Voted No.
Comment by Flapdoodle Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 11:20 am
Voted “Yes” only to the core standards.
There can always be nuanced areas, but those nuances should be seen as something unique and unmatched in other places.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 11:21 am
Counties should have authority over these decisions. Think of the differences in the terrain of different areas of the state. Some counties are agricultural while others are not. County boards know what is best for their county and residents. Lots of issues with wind turbines in general. Absentee land owners are overwhelmingly the ones who sign leases. Wind turbines interfere with crop dusting and farm machinery gps systems. Property values decline because no one wants to live near a wind farm.
Comment by Way South of I-80 Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 11:25 am
@Karatecorn
I’m not doubting that Facebook, Twitter, and all social media is full of hogwash and words Rich prefers we not use here. The developers need to address those concerns and advocate for their project, I don’t think it’s up to the State to step over those concerns.
Comment by Mason. Born Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 11:35 am
===But Ms. Gallagher is opposed to the project. The aerial seeding of cover crops will cost more with wind turbines nearby and make it harder for her to sustainably farm. The use of heavy equipment to install turbines can disrupt drainage patterns in agricultural land, and Ms. Gallagher believes her farm will suffer.===
I voted yes because the state has the expertise to make some broad zoning guidelines that take into account drainage, soil conservation, farming practices and land management. Under a state siting standards regimen, areas around the state could be identified for the maximum renewable fuels potential while minimizing the negative impacts to current land owners. That wouldn’t automatically allow a renewable operation to come in, but it would remove counties from blanket bans and allow each project to be approved or denied on a common set of standards. There would still be local decision making, but not 102 different standards for how and where these projects could be sited.
Statewide consistent standards, followed by local approval. We do this for oil, gas and mineral exploitation and remediation now, I don’t know why renewables should be held to a higher standard.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 11:37 am
Yes.
But it’s going to require some carrots and sticks.
Require any county participating in aggregation agreements to allow site placement in the county.
When it hits their pocketbooks it will be more tangible than nonsensical facebook memes.
Something similar was done on the leases for previous wind sites, but more directly with the landowners. Once the farmers saw the profit from leasing a portion of their land to wind generation, they suddenly couldn’t line up fast enough to get one placed on their property.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 11:38 am
Listen, in theory, wind energy makes a whole lot of sense, but in practice there are some serious and lasting negative effects. For instance, outside of the enormous carbon footprint that goes into building the parts (and the lack of recyclable options once the systems go out of service) the construction of these systems requires pouring thousands of tons of concrete over some of the country’s most fertile soil (for each structure). That cannot be considered low impact by any standard, especially when compared to solar - which does not require such a significant permanent foundation. Just consider the carbon footprint associated with the hundreds of trips concrete ready-mix trucks and other industrial vehicles and heavy equipment have on the environment, and as well on the drain tiles. Again, not low impact by any means. When in operation they cause shadow flicker on neighboring properties, noise pollution, light pollution, kill and/or threaten wild life, disrupt farmers ability to use aerial application to spray fungicides on crops. They essentially change the nature and makeup of the rural and agricultural communities in which they are sited. This is unlike solar farms which can be screened in, often times by landscaping. The infrastructure needed to connect these wind systems to the power grid also increases the carbon footprint of these systems and impacts wild life (see the lawsuit in Wisconsin - which is brought by environmental groups - against the development of the Cardinal/Hickory Creek project).
I could honestly go on, but I am not getting paid for this and I’m not even certain this will actually be posted by the administrators of the blog, so I will simply conclude that I think “low impact” is an unfair an inaccurate characterization of industrial wind systems.
Comment by rtov Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 11:42 am
“If we’re going to place this burden on largely rural areas largely for the benefit of urban users”
Is there a separate grid for the rural or what does this comment mean?
Comment by SWIL_Voter Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 11:47 am
“Once the farmers saw the profit from leasing a portion of their land to wind generation, they suddenly couldn’t line up fast enough to get one placed on their property.”
Money talks. Astroturf facebook groups talk louder.
Comment by DeeLay Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 11:47 am
I voted yes with regard to establishing statewide standards. This idea is a no-brainer. States and communities should regulate business activities in their jurisdictions.
However, I am opposed to the first bullet in the Illinois Environmental Council’s list of goals (i.e., “removes overburdensome local bans and siting regulations”). The second two bulleted items are just fluff to make the first one seem more agreeable.
At some level, local communities should have more control over whether or not lands in their counties can be sold, rented, how those lands are developed and managed, etc. That is an accepted purpose of local government.
The purpose of local government is also in large part, policing and regulating the activities of people under their jurisdictions. And according to Senator Mitt Romney when he was running for president and asked about Citizen’s United being passed, we need to remember that “Corporations are people, my friend.”
If the Piatt government does not want the wind farm, so be it. If most citizens do not like that decision, they can vote again in a few months or so. But I would oppose the above “stated” regulation (i.e., removes overburdensome local bans and siting regulations), because it empowers to the state to force counties and municipalities to commit to changes that are not essential.
The idea of “eminent domain” must be used sparingly, and only when it is in the essential and necessary interests of all the people. Currently, there are plenty of places where wind farms can be developed - that Apex Clean Energy invested prematurely on a plot that is not agreeable to the county officers, seems more an instant of a bad choice by Apex, that a bad decision by community leaders. But again, the voters can sort that out next election if they disagree generally.
Private corporations are individuals, not entities, according to Citizens’ United. And in this case, a corporation has been told no. Just as Trump cannot decide who won the election, Apex should not be allowed to circumvent the legal processes in place in Piatt County.
Comment by H-W Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 11:48 am
Sorry OW - I posted a response to your question but it didn’t make it to the board.
Comment by rtov Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 11:54 am
===I posted a response===
Links? Cites?
Those are examples, if you have them.
I’ve looked, at this point I’ve yet to find “millions” as a number cited
To the post,
If “corruption” is your crutch then you have no argument to the merits.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 11:58 am
===Listen, in theory,===
Yeah.
Like I said.
Cites? Links?
I don’t need to “listen”, I already am reading it, bud.
With respect.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 12:05 pm
“outside of the enormous carbon footprint that goes into building the parts”
Define “enormous,” because it offsets its own footprint in like a year. Stopped reading there because you need to do some research.
Comment by SWIL_Voter Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 12:06 pm
===I could honestly go on===
The argument is just an opinion based thought at this point.
As I drive thru Indiana and see field after field with dozens of wind turbines… again, Indiana… there needs to be the argument to what is factually documented
Also why I voted yes, uniformity with exceptions to unique and unmatched examples
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 12:11 pm
The poll question as worded is an easy enough one to answer for me. I voted yes…as far as minimum setback requirements, noise/height requirements, maintenance/access requirements, etc. And these standards being in place would protect those who might be near but not directly benefitted by the power developers. That being said, there should always be a public process in place where the community has a voice, so just because a project meets a standard doesn’t automatically allow it to be built, if there are overriding concerns not addressed by the siting standards.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 12:19 pm
Drifting off the direct topic to solar for a moment. Many farmers are against them on the basis that it takes ag land out of production and generates electricity.
When they bring that up - ask them about the 1/3 of land devoted to growing corn going to ethanol.
Comment by Cool Papa Bell Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 12:20 pm
I spend the time to write a response and it doesn’t get posted. I enjoy the discussion, sorry that I can’t be a part of it.
Comment by rtov Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 12:34 pm
I voted no against statewide regulation of wind and solar projects.
I voted no. State legislators do not have the best interest of local communities in mind because there is only representation based upon population, not land area or land use. In areas that are largely agricultural with low populations, only the local government knows what is best. This is not about climate change, not about wind or solar projects. This is about Socialism and big government control.
Comment by planeb Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 12:54 pm
Voted yes. I’m aghast that people don’t understand the consequences of continuing to burn fossil fuels, but here we are. We need to switch to renewables in order to survive, and if statewide rules is how it gets done, so be it.
Comment by KBS Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 12:54 pm
I’ve personally worked to permit 15 renewable projects over the course of my career, which has resulted in me sitting through several hundred hours of ZBA and County Board meetings across multiple counties.
Statewide standards for setbacks, decomissioning, height limits, shadow flicker, noise etc. would very much help with the permitting process as these are the elements that are most frequently challenged during approval processes and also in the subsequent sour-grapes court cases that follow successfully-permitted projects.
The bottom line is that the State’s renewable energy plan requires that rural counties play ball and allow this stuff to get built. Unfortunately, you don’t always have cooperative government entities where transmission interconnect points and development ground meet. This bill wouldn’t actually compel local counties to acquiesce to projects, but it would limit the number of available angles for opposition to attack projects.
Comment by sulla Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 1:01 pm
Papa gets it.
Solar can be built in a way that lets you grow crops under the panels or between the rows. It just won’t be corn and beans, which are like what, 95 percent of Illinois crops? Pumpkin being third, perhaps. Voted yes for the greater good, they can work out compensations.
Comment by Give Us Barabbas Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 1:01 pm
Some of you are quick to paint folks as only NIMBYs when it comes to holding industrial/utility scale wind and solar developers accountable for what is happening in their counties. How many of you have actually read a submitted application or attended a complete multi-day zoning hearing listening to all sides? Do you know how NPDES, EcoCAT, BBCS, or FAA Form 7460-1 can affect a development? What happens when an application is submitted to a county and it is incomplete? Who will be responsible for holding that company accountable for having a complete application BEFORE a hearing is held? The state or the local government?
Let’s just look at setbacks:
The simple standards in this proposed legislation are based on industry “standards”.
For a 600 foot turbine tower is 1260 ft. really the safest setback to an occupied residence?
What is the industry “standard” for turbine technicians during a thunderstorm or icing event or turbine nacelle fire? Shouldn’t there be equivalent safety standards for people who would have to live year-round next to one of these towers… which are already over 600 ft. tall and growing toward 700 ft. , as industry “standard”.
Safety manuals from manufacturers are considered confidential business information by the industry when they have been asked to submit them for review in application considerations. Why?
This is only one question that local governments have addressed to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their residents. I voted No because from what I’ve witnessed over the last 6 years, the state is in no way prepared to be able to serve as the ultimate decider for local decisions.
Comment by Anon221 Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 1:07 pm
“This is about Socialism and big government control.”
Are you on the side of the local government telling private landowners they can’t build a wind turbine on their own property? Or on the side of the state government hypothetically siding with the private land owner? Your talking points machine might need recalibrating
Comment by SWIL_Voter Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 1:07 pm
=== This is about Socialism and big government control.===
End ALL agricultural subsidies, amirite?
Please stop watching Fox News
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 1:19 pm
Voted NO
Everything that rtov said is absolutely true. In our county (Coles) APEX is proposing to build wind towers that are 700 feet tall. The St. Louis arch is smaller than that. The damage done to field tile, roads, and adjacent land to the wind turbine is disasterous. Could go on and on as RTOV points out.
Comment by Blues Fan Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 1:33 pm
Likely most of the yes votes have never witnessed wind hearings. I have witnessed or read transcripts of multiple hearings. Wind and solar companies generally do not respect county zoning, county natural resources (soil.water), roads, or neighbors. They fly in from multiple states, rent gas guzzlers and expect us to believe they care about climate while they call us ignorant country bumpkins. Developers and their investors are concerned with profit. The proposed amendment proves it by limiting their liability in repairing roads they destroy. None of them will have their home and water impacted by industrial power plants. The language for the proposed standards did not go through any public hearing but was created by the wind and solar industries. There is nothing fair about the language. When the state livestock standards were established at least there were hearings where experts were allowed to testify- so please don’t compare an industrial wish list amendment to standards established by public hearings. Hope you all voting yes will enjoy higher food prices as we destroy prime farmland across Illinois. Illinois makes money from agriculture and looses money, people and businesses as electricity becomes more expensive and unreliable.
Comment by Eye Witness Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 1:34 pm
“Everything that rtov said is absolutely true.”
It isn’t though, and the habit of the locals to craft policy based on Facebook memes is why people are calling for state oversight in the first place.
Comment by SWIL_Voter Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 1:35 pm
I have attended numerous county planning committee meetings where this has been discussed at the county level with LOTS of data to go over (too numerous to mention in here OW) and I cannot imagine our great state being able to do this on a state-wide level as Anon221 points out. This should not be an issue where the state dictates what happens within every county.
Comment by Blues Fan Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 1:36 pm
I have attended numerous county planning committee meetings where this has been discussed at the county level with LOTS of data to go over (too numerous to mention in here OW) and I cannot imagine our great state being able to do this on a state-wide level as Anon221 points out.
Comment by Blues Fan Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 1:37 pm
=== Everything that rtov said is absolutely true===
Cite please.
An opinion isn’t an alternative fact, it’s still an opinion.
Opinions are fine.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 1:37 pm
Another major wind farm expansion was just approved in central Illinois county by lame duck county board members. It angered a few folks there about even more turbines being added to the landscape.
So proper state-wide regulations can work both ways. They can keep projects going and they can keep a lid on boards who just want push something through.
Renewable energy projects are going to be white hot fights behind the scenes over the next few years. The rabid opposition to solar is really something. There was great article recently on a big project in Indiana and how it rankled the countyside.
Again - farmers are free to plant corn or soybeans to turn into motor fuel - so I don’t see why landowners should be told they can’t plant solar panels to produce electricity.
But many in “BIG AG” are steadfast against solar and want county limitations on the number of acres devoted to solar production.
A looming issue is what a landowner has the right to say no too when it comes to CO2 being “stored” underneath their land.
Battles are ahead as those pipeline projects start to arrive in Illinois.
Comment by Cool Papa Bell Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 1:37 pm
sorry for the somewhat duplicate comment. Didn’t see that the first one had went through.
Comment by Blues Fan Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 1:39 pm
=== too numerous to mention in here===
Google is your friend.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 1:40 pm
“cannot imagine our great state being able to do this on a state-wide level as Anon221 points out.”
Why would a setback need to be variable in Piatt vs Sangamon? Wouldn’t we be better served having a standard setback for the state?
Comment by SWIL_Voter Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 1:42 pm
Voted No. planeb is right, “This is not about climate change, not about wind or solar projects. This is about Socialism and big government control.” The same leftist types who donate to stop hunger in other countries, then want to remove tillable cropland from circulation by allowing wind turbine companies to pour thirty foot deep concrete foundations for their monstrosities. This is also about destroying family farms so these corporations can control the food supply.
Comment by Payback Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 1:45 pm
No, a county has every right to protect its residents. The state standards proposed do NOT protect we the people what so ever.
Talk to people who live in the footprint of these things(not lease holders, they have a gag order in their contract) If you want to know the truth about health, sleep deprivation concerns.
Comment by PMW Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 1:51 pm
“Illinois makes money from agriculture and looses money, people and businesses as electricity becomes more expensive and unreliable.”
So why wouldn’t you want to build more electric generating capacity? And if the farmers are making so much money on the Ag side, why are they so eager to build out these wind farms on their land?
Comment by SWIL_Voter Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 1:52 pm
=== The same leftist types who donate to stop hunger in other countries, then want to remove tillable cropland from circulation by allowing wind turbine companies to pour thirty foot deep concrete foundations for their monstrosities.===
Any source of energy generating is going to need a foundation, whether it’s a nuclear power plant, a coal burning plant or how you fuel your body with calories at your local Waffle Hut, they all will require foundations. A wind turbine is no different.
Comment by Betty Draper’s cigarette Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 1:58 pm
“The same leftist types who donate to stop hunger in other countries, then want to remove tillable cropland from circulation by allowing wind turbine companies to pour thirty foot deep concrete foundations for their monstrosities. This is also about destroying family farms so these corporations can control the food supply.”
This level of delusional detachment from reality is why a state level solution is being proposed. Let adults with knowledge who haven’t been brain poisoned by Facebook make these decisions.
Comment by SWIL_Voter Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 1:58 pm
@Payback
= then want to remove tillable cropland from circulation by allowing wind turbine companies to pour thirty foot deep concrete foundations for their monstrosities. =
Have you seen a turbine in the field and how much of that field can’t be farmed anymore?
It’s like 95% remains tillable.
You do understand that the landowner is compensated? Rent is paid by the windfarm owner or solar company. Not a government payout (unlike MFP, or ARC or PLC or Crop Insurance)
You can’t be serious about the food supply.
There are 11 million acres of corn production in Illinois. More than 3 million acres goes to ethanol production (motor fuel - not food). About 5 million more acres of corn from Illinois is exported. So who’s controlling the food supply already and how about doing something better with 3 million acres of land devoted to making motor fuel?
Comment by Cool Papa Bell Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 1:59 pm
Local control is there to protect local communities. Illinois has such a diverse topography that only the locals know how it is affected and how various projects affect their health, safety, welfare. No one sitting in a state office has enough knowledge of each community to be an expert on siting projects. We do NOT need more state controls put on us.
Comment by K Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 2:03 pm
SWIL- “Why would a setback need to be variable in Piatt vs Sangamon? Wouldn’t we be better served having a standard setback for the state?”
It boils down to how do you determine what is a safe setback without all the information required to do so. And, yes, setbacks may need to be different in different parts of the state based on many variable that may only be known at or apply to the local level and discovered too late after the fact with a generic statewide standard.
The 1.1 setback “standard”, for instance, in the proposed legislation is known commonly as tip-over height. Turbines do collapse. It may be a “rare” event, but it is documented worldwide, even with some of the newer, taller, broader models. You can find videos online of collapses, both intentional (demolition) and unintentional (turbine fire or high wind events). When these come crashing down, items will be flung further than 1.1 times height.
So… again… what safety setback should be the “standard”? What industry wants so they can build more turbines closer to roads, buildings, and residences? Is that for the interest of public safety or a developer’s financial interests?
And, as these wind “farms” age out and may not be maintained properly (after possibly being bought and sold off multiple times), more “rare” occurrences such as blade failures, nacelle fires, tower failures, oil leaks tend to mount. Having a safe setback at the beginning of a project helps ensure the public safety of the project over its 20-25 year average life span.
Comment by Anon221 Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 2:06 pm
===Illinois has such a diverse topography===
Um, no. Most all of Illinois is rolling prairie. There are differences in the south and northwest.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 2:10 pm
Anon, instead of just saying there are lots of reasons, what are examples of reasons why the same turbine should have variable setbacks in different parts of the state? And why would a random county board member be better equipped to come up with these regulations than somebody affiliated with the state? Next to the Facebook meme people, in my experience attending these meetings, the county board members are the next least informed about how wind energy works
Comment by SWIL_Voter Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 2:20 pm
I believe a farmer should be able to make their own decisions about their land not the government. We have put blood & sweat into our properties. We paid for pay taxes on it and pay taxes on income. I don’t think you would like it if I came into your home & told you how to run it or what you were allowed to do with it. We also need to protect the endangered species, you never know how that could effect our eco system. When you take away of some of the best land from farming you never can grow more. Please respect our rights.
Comment by aj Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 2:29 pm
“Please respect our rights.”
Oh give me a break. What about the rights of the farmer who wants to lease their family’s ground for a turbine? Does that farmer not have the right to monetize their property?
The biggest supporters of the wind projects I’ve worked on were the small farmers who needed the revenue diversification that came with a turbine lease. It was the big 25,000+ acre landowners who could afford to scoff at renewables.
Wind and Solar farms are a series of bi-lateral contracts between consenting parties. No private developer can force a landowner to take part in a project. If you don’t like wind turbines, don’t sign a lease with a wind company.
Comment by sulla Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 3:29 pm
Mr. Miller, the issue is not just topography. It is protecting either comprehensive plans, prime farmland, sensitive aquifers, people with special needs, rural roads, dopler radar systems, etc. The proposed statewide standard assumes every county/ every project site is the same- and they are not.
Comment by eye witness Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 3:58 pm
A minimum state standard would set a floor to work from if the state were to do anything, but asking rural areas to give up the established right and responsibility for our own zoning would be unacceptable. A statewide standard no matter where it lands would favor one while penalizing another. Keep zoning local. We don’t need Illinois overreach in this area.
Comment by Beenaroundtheblock Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 4:01 pm
Voted no. Deference should be given to locals when it comes to local matters.
Comment by thechampaignlife Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 4:07 pm
@AJ
As a farmer do you think that a county should have a cap on the amount of acres that can be devoted to solar? Because that’s an idea floating around a large ag group.
Comment by Cool Papa Bell Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 4:35 pm
I think the sate should have a standard, but feel that county and local ordinances could be made more restrictive if they want more protections for the landowners
Comment by PR Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 5:32 pm
State siting standards will not ensure renewable energy projects are responsibly developed, especially when the standards are taken verbatim from the wind/solar developer playbooks. Their goal is to make money, not protect the residents in the footprints of these projects. What other industry do we let police themselves? “No” to state control over local matters.
Comment by Local knows best Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 6:31 pm
PR - Appreciate the direct answer without spin - and, by-the-way, the way site-selection for all other major energy projects is done.
Comment by Joe Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 9:45 pm
State government should not control renewable energy decisions. Our local government should be able to set their own wind ordinance and not push it for the so called promised income. I wish we were a county that was totaly prohibiting wind energy in our farming communities.
Comment by P. H Thursday, Jan 5, 23 @ 1:15 am
I voted NO. Local governments better represent the people, once the people are become aware and allowed to speak.
Comment by Balony Joe Thursday, Jan 5, 23 @ 6:36 am
Looks like the people have spoken. The bottlenecks of green energy developments are not at the county level. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/12/20/clean-energy-bottleneck-transmission-lines/
Comment by Liberty Thursday, Jan 5, 23 @ 1:17 pm
===The bottlenecks of green energy developments are not at the county level===
lol
What a dumb thing to claim.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 5, 23 @ 1:33 pm
Have you looked at the database of how many wind and solar projects have been approved in the past 10 years in Illinois Rich? In my county, there have been 12 solar projects approve and several in the pipeline and 3 wind, and one in the pipeline. You not of what you are pushing. Illinois is the 5th largest generator of wind.
Comment by Liberty Thursday, Jan 5, 23 @ 1:48 pm
Most if not all county ordinances in the state of Illinois have a clause that would make all restrictions waivable. All the developers need to do is sign up more people using good neighbor agreements and make it worth their while to sign.
Comment by Harvey Thursday, Jan 5, 23 @ 2:17 pm
Industrial wind turbines transform a rural area forever. Their impact can never be erased. Those opposing these projects are well educated and informed on this subject. They care deeply about preserving the land, the environment, their homes and way of living. They call for better and more effective reliable energy then wind.
They simply have not drank the cool aid that wind energy is the answer. Wind energy has simply devoured tax dollars and lined the pockets of relatively few. The majority of those who will benefit financially will never live anywhere near a wind turbine or experience their effects. Those in opposition need to stay strong and united in preventing rural America from being destroyed by big money and poor policy. Local control is absolutely necessary.
Comment by AW Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 7:46 am