Believe it or don't, I read TFA and added a little color to the situation since most of us understand that great technology like high-capacity turbines has the potential to be useful in more locations than just offshore installations.

As time passes and we are able to make the switch from fossil fuel sources to renewable sources we will find ourselves with a requirement that we produce as much power as possible in the smallest footprint. There will always be people who don't want a turbine near their house. That's a simple fact. One of the original arguments against wind installations in California was the argument that it spoiled the view since no one wanted to see a bunch of turbines along a scenic ridge, they preferred the unmolested vistas of their childhood. Later, they focused on noise issues, which are valid concerns, and many states worked with operators and other stakeholders to design a set of guidelines or restrictions on minimal offsets from habitations.

Texas is not one of those states and so wind turbines of any size can be installed within the wind farms without taking into consideration existing habitations. Most operators solicit public input though in the case I mentioned, there is no record of any notice to affected people that the wind farm might have an impact on their use of their property or quality of life.

It is a lot like the problems we had here during the Barnett Shale boom about 15 years ago where operators bought mineral rights all over North Texas and began drilling for natural gas and then fracking those wells so they would be economical to produce. There were no restrictions in most cities and communities on offsets to housing, schools, businesses, etc and so, as the industry has done so many times in the past, they took advantage of that situation and began drilling knowing that they could deal with those problems later.

Over a course of years some communities passed regulations limiting drilling locations and other parts of the operation in a bid to prevent drilling wells just over a fence and the building of compressor stations in neighborhoods.

I think if you had a compressor station, even one with all the noise attenuating walls around it, near your own house you would also keep a wary eye on any attempts to bring other noise sources into your area that will interfere with your quiet enjoyment of your private property. The low frequency rumble from the compressor engines is not attenuated by the puffy walls and travels for large distances like ground roll on a seismic record. I am a geophysicist and for me, when the compressor starts up it is like feeling the initial part of an upsweep from a vibrator except that the upsweep never makes it to the higher frequencies. It's just a low frequency rumble that doesn't stop until the compressor engines stop.

My mind doesn't get stuck on actualities, I look at possibilities, probabilities, and consequences and for that reason I can see that something like a huge turbine installed today in an offshore generation configuration could easily be employed later as a component of an onshore generation farm.

I know that puff piece article didn't cover any of that ground since it was not designed to tell any part of that story.