DeKalb Co., IL. (ECWd) –
Submitted from a reader in the DeKalb County area:
Local wind turbine located near Shabbona Rd and McGirr Rd appears to have began self-decommissioning this month.
Nearby neighbor’s report that that they heard a loud noise the evening of [Feb] 9th and saw the turbine the next morning.
Photographs used with permission.
Vince KoersPosted at 12:34h, 20 February
Quality control apparently is not up to snuff. Expect more of the same, as replacing a defunct device is far more expensive than the original cost, it will be interesting to see how the farmer/owner is made whole. Is he just “out of luck,” or is there a way forward that recoups his lost opportunity?
Brad abernethyPosted at 12:49h, 21 February
I am not sure where you get the idea that replacing the wings of a turbine costs more than the original cost. That is completely untrue. The wings are the most likely parts to wear out, and have a life expectancy of 20 years maximum.
Coors litePosted at 22:26h, 21 February
When the wings (blades) go, they exert excessive torque on the entire tower, and at the very least the entire structure is suspect pending an expensive engineering analysis to insure the integrity of the towe – see recent tower collapse nearby…
Then aside from evaluating the other blades, there is the cost of the new blade, and the expense of the crane and crews to install and balance the new blade. It is possible these costs exceed the original costs of the entire tower, and it remains to be seen whether tower farm operations repair or abandon such sites.
Jim GoodsonPosted at 16:12h, 23 February
What Coors Lite said
John GoudgePosted at 18:11h, 21 February
You object to the landowner making a buck and them other folk who don’t live nearby getting power? I just don’t know why any one needs that stuff Candels worked fine for grand dad
Linda GrantPosted at 13:10h, 20 February
We must stop these foreign owned companies from taking our farmland.
Brad abernethyPosted at 12:45h, 21 February
The amount of land needed for a turbine is miniscule compared to the power generated. A large turbine only has about a 100 x 100 foot area that is not usable..this is the concrete base. The rest under the turbine is usable exactly as it was before. The farmer meanwhile, gets far more money paid to him than any cash crop can bring in on the same amount of land. Please go to a turbine site to see it close up.
Susan PagePosted at 19:13h, 21 February
Turbines are over 450 ft tall. Taller than the Space Needle in Seattle. The blade span is over a football field wide.
Max W BaileyPosted at 10:13h, 22 February
Not all towers are 450 feet tall. Many are under 300 feet.
John Kraft & Kirk AllenPosted at 15:06h, 22 February
Many are over 450 feet…
Michael E MoorePosted at 23:49h, 22 February
Are you talking about China in particular????
[email protected]Posted at 14:45h, 20 February
Vince eats 💩
Iowa Wind TechPosted at 07:53h, 21 February
The problem stems from not getting enough workforce to service these commodities in a timely manner. Can’t tell you how many O&Ms are behind service schedules and are offering OT hand over fist. On top of that, there are supply chain issues and idiots perpetuating tin foil conspiracies and misinformation.
Golden CountryPosted at 13:30h, 21 February
My 2 cents regarding wind farms. Most of these are owned by foreign companies and the development of the project would not take place without the federal tax credits that aid in their construction. From what I understand the wind developments bring in 3 revenue streams. Electrical power that is sold and put into the grid, the federal tax credits and renewal energy credits that are sold to offset co emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels. They do require constant maintenance but I believe wind development companies hire maintenance staff to perform maintenance. Wind development companies have to supply a bond in an amount necessary to cover any decommissioning cost so that a local agency would not have to eat the cost of removing these industrial complexes. These developments are being driven by political forces. IMO these are not efficient enough to replace fossil fuels. There are only so many locations, usually the tops of ridges and bluffs. that make these developments cost effective.. In Illinois our ignorant legislators have deliberately removed local governments from any decision making on how and where these things are being constructed. Although the wind is generated locally none of the electrical power that is generated stays in the local community. Ask anyone living near an industrial wind development if their utility cost has dropped. The owners of the land (used to receive around $10,000 per turbine located on their ground). Local taxing bodies (mainly school districts) benefit since the land the turbines are located on are rezoned from agricultural and assessed at a higher tax rate. It doesn’t bring in that much more tax revenue but one can FOIA a county to find out. These developments have a salvage value so the tax revenue that is generated to local taxing bodies diminishes over time.
In 20 years the tax revenue will be nothing and you will still have an eye sore, So you will have a industrial wind complex utilizing a wind source driven by local geologic conditions and the locals (except the land owners) getting nothing in return.
Jim GoodsonPosted at 16:20h, 23 February
Warren Buffett has said many times that when the DIE stops subsidizing wind energy that the entire business will come to a sudden halt. As of this moment the DOE gives subsidies of 72.00 per megawatt hour of generation. Currently a MW sells for about 42.00 so these large utilities are not in it to bring clean power they’re in it to milk off of the government. This technology isn’t viable at this time and will never be until they can figure out how to store the energy. Electricity is an on demand commodity. We saw here in Texas 2 years ago with a hard freeze that wind underperformed and that resulted in rolling brown ours and several deaths from people freezing to death. This technology is just like electric vehicles it’s just a feel good thing because both are not yet viable I’ve been in power generation for 30 plus years
Just my 2 cents
Louis CoxPosted at 16:04h, 21 February
Wow! My complements to the author above. Eyr opening to many I’m sure. A great summery from top to bottom. Thank you
Darryl yanskeyPosted at 17:58h, 22 February
To replace all of the coal fired power stations in the United States will take 1.2 million wind turbines and as of right now there are only 70,800 wind turbines built with an average of 2.75 megawatts per wind turbine. Now what are you going to do when the wind don’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine?
Gerald ThompsonPosted at 19:45h, 23 February
What you folks are missing is that wind technology keeps improving. The arguments preceding are similar to those against the horseless carriage in the early 1900’s. Are we driving the same car now as then? They have greatly improved. The same is happening with wind turbines. Our energy should be an amalgam of all that is available and then if a non-renewable resource runs out, we are all set with advanced renewable energy. Wind has made great strides just in the last ten years.
Jim GoodsonPosted at 20:06h, 23 February
I don’t disagree at all. However when does it improve to the point that it’s self sustaining or are we to subsidize in to perpetuity?