Local Officials: Wind Turbines Enhance Communities, Home Values

May 20, 2019

Or at very least, have no effect.

Big boogeyman for the wind-bagger set.

More on this topic in the vid below, start at 2:33 if pressed.

11 Responses to “Local Officials: Wind Turbines Enhance Communities, Home Values”

  1. Terry Donte Says:

    Apparently the writer of this piece does not live in California where the leftists in SF, Oakland, Piedmont and etc, fight like mad to make sure no wind turbines are visible on the hills around them and took down several large ones close to their precious multi million dollar mansions.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      No, Terry—you Moran! The “writer” and the people he spoke with all live in MICHIGAN—-that’s what the little “MI” means. And the emphasis was on farm and rural property values in the Midwest, not urbanized CA (CA = California)

      Why do you waste our time with the irrelevancy of rich people behaving badly? Oh yes, I forgot, you’re a Moran!

    • rhymeswithgoalie Says:

      …SF, Oakland, Piedmont and etc, fight like mad to make sure no wind turbines are visible on the hills around them

      I would appreciate a link to these events, please.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Ditto—put up or shut up, Terry

      • jimbills Says:

        The original commenter is using confirmation bias in selecting a very spoiled and entitled part of the country to support their overall beliefs, and likely wouldn’t personally support a wind tower in view of their home either (making the leftist dig moot), but I figured this probably was happening in CA, and it is:

        It indicates that they aren’t worried so much about their home values as they are worried about their precious patio views being spoiled. NIMBYism is a real thing and shows an example of how humans are generally screwed up in the head on their priorities.

        The editorial also suggests that environmental concern about desert ecosystems is a factor. That could be the case, but the question might be put to them, either: 1) lose the ecosystem anyway due to climate change because not enough people prioritized adaptation, 2) lose power to your home because you preferred to leave the desert ecosystem unaltered, or 3) alter the desert ecosystem slightly to be a part of fighting climate change. Should be an obvious choice there, with the emphasis on ‘should’.

  2. dumboldguy Says:

    Nothing but good news here. Yes, it’s too bad we have to resort to wind because we have burned too much fossil fuel, but it is what it is—why don’t the wind-baggers just accept reality and give it up?

    Thought a good point was made by the guy who was a hunter talking about how the wild animals and farm animals didn’t seem to be bothered at all by the turbines and walked right under them. (Too bad the dumb animals don’t know they’ere going to get cancer by doing so—-at least according to our HUGELY intelligent president).

  3. redskylite Says:

    Here’s something for those delicate “NIMBY” objectors to think on, especially those who live in proximity to the deep blue sea.

    Climate change has a NIMBY problem. That’s short for “not in my backyard,” and while the threat of a warming world may finally be getting more social and political traction than ever, for most people it’s still something that happens far away, whether it’s at polar ice caps or on distant islands.


  4. redskylite Says:

    Wind in Texas may get stronger according to Physics World.

    Climate change could boost wind power in Texas

    “By 2050 the extra energy in the atmosphere is likely to boost wind-speeds across Texas, according to the team’s climate model simulations, bringing a rise in wind power generation potential of between 1 and 4%.”


    • rhymeswithgoalie Says:

      “Wind in Texas may get stronger according to Physics World.”

      Have some tumbleweeds! No really, I insist.

  5. ubrew12 Says:

    Why are windmills white? I ask this everywhere. If it is in support of Big Fossils, perhaps we could decorate them with flashing Christmas lights? Windmills should be dark green, on their lower half, going toward dark blue/purple on the upper half/blades. There’s not a single landscape architect worth his salt who would not tell you otherwise. Windmills are white to maximize the Nimby effect, and for no other reason. The English actually did a study, showing that white is the worst color, regarding bird deaths (insects are drawn to white at night, and the birds are drawn to the insects). In that study, a dark purple was found to be the best color to preserve the bird population.

    Until someone answers me, I’ll assume windmills are white because Rupert Murdoch ordered it so. Cell towers aren’t white…. ever. They are sandy, in desert landscapes. They are green, among trees. And they are whatever a building is colored, when mounted on that building. Maybe cell towers can be colored whatever they need to be colored, so as not to unnecessarily assault the landscape viewer, because they don’t have a trillion dollar a year industry committed to their removal.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Why not paint them sky blue as so many water towers that used to be green or white have been painted in recent years—-the tower that sits in the middle of the downtown in Manassas, VA has been painted such a good sky blue that it virtually disappears under most light conditions.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: