This poll is very confusing because you combined it with another poll done 4 YEARS ago and there are 3 separate locations for comments.
There are 68 comments (some excellent) just under this article "Proposed Lake Erie wind farm catches a new breeze, secures key green support: The Mix" (BTW - Nature Conservancy does NOT endorse and saw you did deleted them out of your original article);
then if you go into the POLL box to hit comments - I find this separate list of 23 or more;
Yet, there are 155 comments under the original 2010 article "Do you agree with the plan to build wind turbines in Lake Erie? A Plain Dealer poll - By Randy Roguski, The Plain Dealer, on April 05, 2010 at 10:30 AM." This was the poll combined with your current poll of March 19th, 2014.
The one good thing about these two combined Polls - It IS very encouraging to see how the views about Industrial Wind Sites have changed over the last 4 yrs. More people are becoming educated to the fallacies of an additional Industrial source of power that's been around since the 1980s and STILL cannot survive without money from DOE or PTC - Federal Subsidies.
Eric Jelinski - 10 years ago
Why do states preach free enterprise and then give subsidies to wind developers to make a guaranteed 15% rate of return, while citizens got shafted by the falsification of mortgage instruments (subprime) of 2008. The government has failed to deal with those thieves and continues to give away taxpayers dollars to pigs at the trough. No other business has this easy access to taxpayers money. Let them stand on their own two feet and they can't survive. Every wind turbine needs a gas plant to back it up. Why not just build gas plants? The electricity would be much cheaper.
When you tell people in New Zealand how incredibly inefficient wind turbines are, many otherwise intelligent folk get a glazed look in their eyes and turn off - so brainwashed are they by the wind industry and their cronies the so-called greens. How green is it to dig up the coal and mine the iron sands of New Zealand. Send both on diesel powered freighters to China, who will turn them into steel. The steel is shipped to eg Denmark, where companies like Siemens turn them into the wind turbines which we then buy back, requiring another trip, 1/2 way round the world. The construction of the turbines - excavation, concrete, toxic petrochemical lubricants, and auxilliary diesel generators add hugely to the already major carbon cost of these imported industrial parts. It would be more carbon efficient to produce the sporadic power they generate directly from the NZ coal. The ability to utilise high quality coal emission filters now, means the whole round the world trip to get not so 'carbon neutral' power could, and should, be dropped.
Follow up:
"Bring" the documentary film "Windfall" to your town.... It is NOT a lopsided point of view regarding industrial wind turbines. What it did for us was to show BOTH sides to this issue and it's effects upon the small New York State town that is the setting for this charged subject. People left the presentation with pretty much the full impact of what such development means to an area.
Watch the film!!!!!!!!!!
Of course I am for green energy. I am even a supporter if wind development WHERE it is shown to be a benefit to reducing carbon output . Unfortunately, anyone with half a brain could see this poll was skewed by its wording. If you can't just ASK the hard question "Should turbines be placed in Lake Erie" instead of mixing it in with " do you support green energy?"....then you have a weak hand - and you are afraid of the outcome. That's EXACTLY what this alleged "poll" is doing- producing a desired outcome with unfair wording.
Russia shoving a "referendum" without due process gained its' desired "results" to justify annexation of Ukrainian territory. For this reason, I oppose any wind development in the Great Lakes. If you have to be sleazy about your tactics, expect FULL pushback in return. As an illustrator, I offer my services to create additional editorial cartoon highlighting this sham just as it was fought here on the eastern shore if Lake Ontario. The forces of GREED are formidable...but when ALL the facts regarding wind development and the hidden costs are brought to light, people have a chance to make up their own minds in the end.
Galloo Island Wind Project is a prime example - if it made such great economic sense, how come small grass roots efforts were able to overturn the corporate onslaught of misinformation and shady deals behind closed doors? .......being the documentary "WINDFALL" for voters to view.....you'll understand perfectly.
We did just that.
Garrett McCarthy
Artist
Rick Conrad - 10 years ago
The birds that will be killed even off shore will hurt the environment. Wind energy will not reduce CO2 emissions. Wind energy is a scam, a sham and a dirty rotten shame. Supporters of wind energy are either in on the scam or simply wishful thinkers who hate nuclear power and oil companies.
Susan Phillips - 10 years ago
The way this poll is worded is disingenuous. I'm all for renewable energy, but not wind turbines in the Great Lakes! The choice isn't one or the other, there are plenty of other places to put the turbines that would be far less invasive, unsightly and destructive of wildlife, plus other forms of renewable energy.
Parke - 10 years ago
I am forced to live amoung an Industrial Wind Turbine Facility. For all of you that think wind turbines the future, you should be required to spend a few weeks living with the hideous things before you consent to ruin other people's lives like uneducated people did to me and the community that I live in. The view shed is a big thing when it was the reason for building your home where you did. The noise keeps us awake. The bright red blinking lights at night forces us to close blinds, never to enjoy the evenings outside. Anxiety is a constant battle. Ear ringing hardly stops. Once good nieghbors fight. Towns die. Property values drop drastically. People move away from their homes. Don't ruin other people's lives for the American Wind Energy Associations propaganda. Wind turbines are a scheme for huge corporations to collect government handouts while increasing investor profits.
Tom Wasilewski - 10 years ago
In early 2011 the Ontario Government enacted a moratorium on industrial wind turbine development in the Great Lakes bordering the Province. This moratorium included Lake Erie and the primary reason for stopping such reckless development in the Great Lakes was because of serious environmental questions about how these projects would affect the Great Lakes. The Ontario a Government after getting a lot of feedback from the citizens realized that actual independent, scientific, peer reviewed studies had to be completed first. The moratorium is currently in effect and may become permanent. Over here in Ohio the politicians led by Congresswoman Kaptur and Governor John Kasich are falling over each other in their haste to give these snake oil salesmen everything they want. Environmental studies --who cares get your guy to submit something we will rubber stamp it. Are their any politicians with common sense and courage? Not many. Maybe none. In Ontario before the moratorium the government was going to enter 20 year contracts with the wind bandits for purchasing any offshore generated electricity produced at a generation cost of 20 cents per kilowatt with inflation cost add on. They contract negotiations were cancelled after the uproar of the citizens to the schemes and the government finally realized that they needed bonafide studies to be done first and then evaluated. Something the joke of the Ohio Power Siting Board with the Governor's hand picked puppets on the Board would never require. They are a rubber stamp of this Governor John Kasich.
There is plenty of good factual information out here-don't rely on the Cleveland Plain Dealer or government agencies for that. Go to Industrial Wind Alert for editorials and the facts.
Tom Wasilewski - 10 years ago
Looks like the American Wind Energy Association, the lobbying group for the wind industry is supporting this unnecessary, environmentally damaging industrial wind turbine project. The Sierra Club sold out to the wind industry over ten years ago under their then director Carl Pope. Guess who he works for 9 the province because of serious environmental questions the projects would cause. That moratorium is still in effect. There were also questions about the high cost of any electricity actually produced--the government was negotiating 20 year agreements to purse haste the electricity at a generation cost of 20 cents per kilowatt hour. Those contracts were not executed because of the moratorium. More about this can be found on the website: ontario-wind-resistance.org. Also see Great Lakes Wind Resistance and National Wind Watch for the facts.
The so-called environmental studies by LEEDCo were conducted by the wind industry's favorite consultant Kerlinger and company. You can see some of the studies at the website of the Ohio Power Siting Board-over 1,897 pages in one section was not available to read and was noted as confidential parts of other sections were redacted. They want to ultimately destroy Lake Erie with thousands of industrial wind turbines and the Ohio Governor and his luckiest at the Ohio Power Siting Board and Ohio Department of Natural Resources are going to accept these flawed studies of LEEDCo for a project that is totally unnecessary.
President Obama wants to destroy the Great Lakes by building tens of thousands of IWTs. He has the the U.S. Department of Energy leading the charge. They are giving out the money and also rubber stamping the NEPA requirements that under law should be met by this project. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the Buffalo District Office are responsible for issuing the required permits before construction can start. Their representative said they plan on doing an environmental assessment instead of requiring a full environmental impact statement for this first offshore wind turbine project in the Great Lakes--a freshwater drinking source for 33 million people. Lake Erie alone is a freshwater drinking source for over 12 million people. The Sierra Club is a corrupt organization but where are the three Cleveland area Audubon chapters on this project. They are just social clubs who have abandoned their mission statements and purpose for existing. These LEEDCo salesmen and their politicians are in it for the money and it will pay off big time from the taxpayers and electric ratepayers. It is a crime for what they want to do to Lake Erie.
This whole project was set in motion back in 2007-2008 by the Cuyahoga County Commissioners. Many of whom were subsequently indicted by the U.S. Attorney. Corruption started this offshore wind project.
Thomas Prast - 10 years ago
This doesn't do anything to reduce the requirement for conventional power plants at all. They still have to power as if the windmills weren't there. These intermittent sources are only useful to reduce a local source costs which is then passed on to the rest of us. Think about it. If the wind is not blowing, do they stop giving us electricity? No. until there is a found a realistic and economical way to store AC power (and there is none now) then these windmills and solar projects do nothing to reduce the power plants requirements for the grid. Huge waste of money, land, and our national image, the Bald Eagle, which we spend a lot of human lives saving with the banning of DDT.
Thomas Prast - 10 years ago
This doesn't do anything to reduce the requirement for conventional power plants at all. They still have to power as if the windmills weren't there. These intermittent sources are only useful to reduce a local source costs which is then passed on to the rest of us. Think about it. If the wind is not blowing, do they stop giving us electricity? No. until there is a found a realistic and economical way to store AC power (and there is none now) then these windmills and solar projects do nothing to reduce the power plants requirements for the grid. Huge waste of money, land, and our national image, the Bald Eagle, which we spend a lot of human lives saving with the banning of DDT.
Earth Day Coalition in Cleveland strongly supports the LEEDCo. Offshore Wind Project.
Here's why:
1. We need to build up a diversity of domestic and renewable energy supplies that minimize our impact on global warming.
2. We need to put a significant emphasis on conservation of energy resources
3. Impact to wildlife from renewable energy projects and the wind industry appear minimal when compared to the effects of global warming
4. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and others have called climate change the number one threat to all wildlife, including birds.
5. Global warming and it’s threats to future generations are a massive overriding global concern which calls for our urgent response. The Lake Erie offshore wind project is but one of many potential solutions to curbing our dependence on and use of fossil fuels that contribute to the effects of global warming. It also carries the benefit of improving our local economy by creating new manufacturing jobs while improving local air quality and enhancing our quality of life in the great lakes region.
ALAN HENDERSON - 14 years ago
First of all, your phrasing of your poll question is skewed and biased. I believe everyone would like to see green energy. The question in the poll should have been solely about wind turbines in Lake Erie. Do a little research about the driving forces behind wind energy. You might find that the "GREEN" actually refers to $s. Taxpayer subsidies and tax credits will give rich foreign investors 165% of their investment back in 5 yrs.Most production and jobs go overseas ,especially China. Reducing foreign oil reliance is also a make you feel good sham, only 2% of all the electricity in all 50 states comes from oil generated electricity. At best the output of 30% of rated capacity is claimed, realistically it is actually around 10%-15%. They will never pay for themselves,period. When Ted Kennedy was alive you saw how rabid he was against offshore wind turbines at Martha's Vinyard . The rich and powerful always have the NIMBY syndrome don't they? Why?
Laura Jackson - 14 years ago
Wind doesn't work. Our society depends on reliable energy, which wind can't deliver. The billions of dollars spent on wind energy could be spent on better scrubbers, mini-nuclear reactors, and energy conservation. Do your homework and you will see that wind will not even slow down global warming. The very wild places that we should be protecting are being destroyed by industrial wind projects. The only ones who win with wind are developers and landowners. Wind has a huge footprint and very little output. I used to support industrial wind until I discovered that the wind industry is a big scam dating back to ENRON.
ConserveFirst - 14 years ago
Total waste of money. Do your research.
And who worded your poll answers? The corporate wind propaganda machine?
Hugh - 14 years ago
Cleveland's lake front is one of its greatest assets and to descreate it with a bunch of propellers is not a good idea.
All the equipment will be imported and create very few jobs locally. Everyone is for renewable energy when it is done right.
Brian - 14 years ago
We need to do something. The information about global warming and dimimished resources isn't going to go away. These renewable "clean" energy resources can take upwards of a decade to begin to turn a marginable profit or advantage to the general population. We can't wait until we are depleted of energy resources to take action. This is a logical step and appears to be free of contaminates versus other renewable resources so I'm all for the start of our local governments taking action and the steps necessary to sustain growth and building infrastructure for the 21st century and beyond.
"Eyesore" is NOT the issue. The issue is how much are you willing to pay for reliable electricity, and how much coal or oil they actually offset. The devices cost $2MM per MW on land upfront. Over 50% more in water. At best they will produce 30% of their rated capacity, annualized, or 300 kW (on average) for every MW installed. There are 8760 hours in a year, and PJM (our grid operator) typically pays around $0.035 to $0.04 per kW hour. So for every $2MM spent up front, we get $0.04 * 8,760 * 300 kW per year, or $105,000 per year.
The devices last, about twenty years, but require major maintenance after the warranties expire (three to five years). Assuming no tax, no lease payments, no insurance, no decommissioning, no cost of borrowing, no maintenance, no owner profit on equity and no other ongoing expense of any kind, the break even is around 30 years on a twenty year device. Where does the money come from? It comes from our childrens' futures, and from the public services that provided real value but were reduced or eliminated to pay for wind with your tax dollars. LESS THAN HALF OF THE EQUIVALENT GROSS REVENUES FROM WIND COME FROM SELLING ELECTRICITY AT MARKET RATES ! The rest is a giant reverse Robin Hood scheme that is set up to create huge profits for investors and utilities at taxpayer expense.
So are you "all for green energy?" The honest answer is that you aren't willing to pay much more for it, but you are forced to anyway. Numerous unbiased polls around the country show this.
Two other factors off the financial statements of wind LLCs influence the proposition as well: Sporadic, weather-based energy bursts do not replace coal burning or reduce GHG emissions. Reactive power required to keep the grids in balance is much more emissions intensive due to the constant "city driving" conditions wind energy necessitates for them. While reactive power (typically natural gas turbines similar to jet engines) supporting wind - and wind together - can replace coal burning (uneconomically), high efficiency (but less adaptive) natural gas plants can do the same job alone with nearly the same emissions avoidance and at a third the cost. So to eliminate coal, natural gas is the "Eureka, baby" fuel, but the wind infrastructure is redundant, expensive and is the tail that wags the dog of inefficiency in our grids.
The second cost that fails to show up on wind company financial statements is sprawl, or it's opposite, POWER DENSITY. Power density implies reliable streams of energy over time, and when needed. About 1/4 of wind energy's output falls into this category, often called "capacity credit" or "capacity value" as opposed to the less relevant, all inclusive term "capacity factor." PJM bidding rules currently offer that wind will be available when needed most about 13% of the time. (Which 13% of that time still being in question until near the moment it happens). GHG free nuclear energy is given a 92% capacity credit, and resides on a campus about 1/2 square mile.
On land, the impact radius for wind devices (noise, physical hazards, wildlife, etc.) is at least 1/3 mile, making its land sprawl per unit of dependable capacity about 2,000 times greater than nuclear. 2,000 times! It is no wonder so many people come out of the woodwork to object, and those people don't even realize the wind energy value proposition is so terrible!
I am ready for the industry to respond here saying this analysis contains "MISINFORMATION." This is their standard defense. Too bad their standard defense isn't to say we have closed any number of coal plants. Wind never has and never will, because while the affordable can be replaced, by government force, with the extravagantly expensive, the reliable can never be replaced by the unreliable in the realm of utility scale electricity service. Moderated public debate in Cleveland? Count me in! Slander this information? That's a pretty embarrassing excuse for resu
Tiny - 14 years ago
Yes you are right about the jobs; however they won't go to Clevelanders they will go to those who are trained. Lorain county got a jump start on that in 2008. LCC offered a Wind Turbine technician program for free! Lorain participates are certified and ready to go. Don't expect Clevelanders to get these jobs, because once again Clevelanders are day late and a dollar short. Move to Lorain!
Anna - 14 years ago
Eyesores? Are you serious? First of all, that's an opinion not everyone shares, second, that is far from a legitimate reason to not use renewable energy. I agree with the comment that on top of tall buildings might be better, but why not utilize otherwise unused space in our lake? Also, the construction and maintenance of the windmills will bring jobs, and help Cleveland present an image of being a leader in clean energy.
Carol - 14 years ago
I, absolutely, am in favor of wind turbines in Lake Erie, along the freeways, or anywhere else someone wants to put them. I don't see them as an eye sore. To me they are beautiful because we are utilizing the wind as a source of energy. Oil will run out and is already too costly but the wind will always be there for us. Best of all, we don't have to import it !!!
blown away - 14 years ago
They are eyesores. And production does not marry up with demand making them ineffecient. You can't make the wind blow harder (if at all) when demand is up. By the way the poll it very bias. You ask if they are for or against wind turbines in Lake Eire yet by the 'yes' response you state that 'I'm all for renewable energy'. Just because you are for renewable energy does not mean you want these eyesores cluttering up our landscape.
Rabbit Hole - 14 years ago
Only if the wind turbines are efficient. Putting devices on top of tall buildings might be cheaper and more efficient.
This poll is very confusing because you combined it with another poll done 4 YEARS ago and there are 3 separate locations for comments.
There are 68 comments (some excellent) just under this article "Proposed Lake Erie wind farm catches a new breeze, secures key green support: The Mix" (BTW - Nature Conservancy does NOT endorse and saw you did deleted them out of your original article);
then if you go into the POLL box to hit comments - I find this separate list of 23 or more;
Yet, there are 155 comments under the original 2010 article "Do you agree with the plan to build wind turbines in Lake Erie? A Plain Dealer poll - By Randy Roguski, The Plain Dealer, on April 05, 2010 at 10:30 AM." This was the poll combined with your current poll of March 19th, 2014.
The one good thing about these two combined Polls - It IS very encouraging to see how the views about Industrial Wind Sites have changed over the last 4 yrs. More people are becoming educated to the fallacies of an additional Industrial source of power that's been around since the 1980s and STILL cannot survive without money from DOE or PTC - Federal Subsidies.
Why do states preach free enterprise and then give subsidies to wind developers to make a guaranteed 15% rate of return, while citizens got shafted by the falsification of mortgage instruments (subprime) of 2008. The government has failed to deal with those thieves and continues to give away taxpayers dollars to pigs at the trough. No other business has this easy access to taxpayers money. Let them stand on their own two feet and they can't survive. Every wind turbine needs a gas plant to back it up. Why not just build gas plants? The electricity would be much cheaper.
When you tell people in New Zealand how incredibly inefficient wind turbines are, many otherwise intelligent folk get a glazed look in their eyes and turn off - so brainwashed are they by the wind industry and their cronies the so-called greens. How green is it to dig up the coal and mine the iron sands of New Zealand. Send both on diesel powered freighters to China, who will turn them into steel. The steel is shipped to eg Denmark, where companies like Siemens turn them into the wind turbines which we then buy back, requiring another trip, 1/2 way round the world. The construction of the turbines - excavation, concrete, toxic petrochemical lubricants, and auxilliary diesel generators add hugely to the already major carbon cost of these imported industrial parts. It would be more carbon efficient to produce the sporadic power they generate directly from the NZ coal. The ability to utilise high quality coal emission filters now, means the whole round the world trip to get not so 'carbon neutral' power could, and should, be dropped.
Follow up:
"Bring" the documentary film "Windfall" to your town.... It is NOT a lopsided point of view regarding industrial wind turbines. What it did for us was to show BOTH sides to this issue and it's effects upon the small New York State town that is the setting for this charged subject. People left the presentation with pretty much the full impact of what such development means to an area.
Watch the film!!!!!!!!!!
Of course I am for green energy. I am even a supporter if wind development WHERE it is shown to be a benefit to reducing carbon output . Unfortunately, anyone with half a brain could see this poll was skewed by its wording. If you can't just ASK the hard question "Should turbines be placed in Lake Erie" instead of mixing it in with " do you support green energy?"....then you have a weak hand - and you are afraid of the outcome. That's EXACTLY what this alleged "poll" is doing- producing a desired outcome with unfair wording.
Russia shoving a "referendum" without due process gained its' desired "results" to justify annexation of Ukrainian territory. For this reason, I oppose any wind development in the Great Lakes. If you have to be sleazy about your tactics, expect FULL pushback in return. As an illustrator, I offer my services to create additional editorial cartoon highlighting this sham just as it was fought here on the eastern shore if Lake Ontario. The forces of GREED are formidable...but when ALL the facts regarding wind development and the hidden costs are brought to light, people have a chance to make up their own minds in the end.
Galloo Island Wind Project is a prime example - if it made such great economic sense, how come small grass roots efforts were able to overturn the corporate onslaught of misinformation and shady deals behind closed doors? .......being the documentary "WINDFALL" for voters to view.....you'll understand perfectly.
We did just that.
Garrett McCarthy
Artist
The birds that will be killed even off shore will hurt the environment. Wind energy will not reduce CO2 emissions. Wind energy is a scam, a sham and a dirty rotten shame. Supporters of wind energy are either in on the scam or simply wishful thinkers who hate nuclear power and oil companies.
The way this poll is worded is disingenuous. I'm all for renewable energy, but not wind turbines in the Great Lakes! The choice isn't one or the other, there are plenty of other places to put the turbines that would be far less invasive, unsightly and destructive of wildlife, plus other forms of renewable energy.
I am forced to live amoung an Industrial Wind Turbine Facility. For all of you that think wind turbines the future, you should be required to spend a few weeks living with the hideous things before you consent to ruin other people's lives like uneducated people did to me and the community that I live in. The view shed is a big thing when it was the reason for building your home where you did. The noise keeps us awake. The bright red blinking lights at night forces us to close blinds, never to enjoy the evenings outside. Anxiety is a constant battle. Ear ringing hardly stops. Once good nieghbors fight. Towns die. Property values drop drastically. People move away from their homes. Don't ruin other people's lives for the American Wind Energy Associations propaganda. Wind turbines are a scheme for huge corporations to collect government handouts while increasing investor profits.
In early 2011 the Ontario Government enacted a moratorium on industrial wind turbine development in the Great Lakes bordering the Province. This moratorium included Lake Erie and the primary reason for stopping such reckless development in the Great Lakes was because of serious environmental questions about how these projects would affect the Great Lakes. The Ontario a Government after getting a lot of feedback from the citizens realized that actual independent, scientific, peer reviewed studies had to be completed first. The moratorium is currently in effect and may become permanent. Over here in Ohio the politicians led by Congresswoman Kaptur and Governor John Kasich are falling over each other in their haste to give these snake oil salesmen everything they want. Environmental studies --who cares get your guy to submit something we will rubber stamp it. Are their any politicians with common sense and courage? Not many. Maybe none. In Ontario before the moratorium the government was going to enter 20 year contracts with the wind bandits for purchasing any offshore generated electricity produced at a generation cost of 20 cents per kilowatt with inflation cost add on. They contract negotiations were cancelled after the uproar of the citizens to the schemes and the government finally realized that they needed bonafide studies to be done first and then evaluated. Something the joke of the Ohio Power Siting Board with the Governor's hand picked puppets on the Board would never require. They are a rubber stamp of this Governor John Kasich.
There is plenty of good factual information out here-don't rely on the Cleveland Plain Dealer or government agencies for that. Go to Industrial Wind Alert for editorials and the facts.
Looks like the American Wind Energy Association, the lobbying group for the wind industry is supporting this unnecessary, environmentally damaging industrial wind turbine project. The Sierra Club sold out to the wind industry over ten years ago under their then director Carl Pope. Guess who he works for 9 the province because of serious environmental questions the projects would cause. That moratorium is still in effect. There were also questions about the high cost of any electricity actually produced--the government was negotiating 20 year agreements to purse haste the electricity at a generation cost of 20 cents per kilowatt hour. Those contracts were not executed because of the moratorium. More about this can be found on the website: ontario-wind-resistance.org. Also see Great Lakes Wind Resistance and National Wind Watch for the facts.
The so-called environmental studies by LEEDCo were conducted by the wind industry's favorite consultant Kerlinger and company. You can see some of the studies at the website of the Ohio Power Siting Board-over 1,897 pages in one section was not available to read and was noted as confidential parts of other sections were redacted. They want to ultimately destroy Lake Erie with thousands of industrial wind turbines and the Ohio Governor and his luckiest at the Ohio Power Siting Board and Ohio Department of Natural Resources are going to accept these flawed studies of LEEDCo for a project that is totally unnecessary.
President Obama wants to destroy the Great Lakes by building tens of thousands of IWTs. He has the the U.S. Department of Energy leading the charge. They are giving out the money and also rubber stamping the NEPA requirements that under law should be met by this project. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the Buffalo District Office are responsible for issuing the required permits before construction can start. Their representative said they plan on doing an environmental assessment instead of requiring a full environmental impact statement for this first offshore wind turbine project in the Great Lakes--a freshwater drinking source for 33 million people. Lake Erie alone is a freshwater drinking source for over 12 million people. The Sierra Club is a corrupt organization but where are the three Cleveland area Audubon chapters on this project. They are just social clubs who have abandoned their mission statements and purpose for existing. These LEEDCo salesmen and their politicians are in it for the money and it will pay off big time from the taxpayers and electric ratepayers. It is a crime for what they want to do to Lake Erie.
This whole project was set in motion back in 2007-2008 by the Cuyahoga County Commissioners. Many of whom were subsequently indicted by the U.S. Attorney. Corruption started this offshore wind project.
This doesn't do anything to reduce the requirement for conventional power plants at all. They still have to power as if the windmills weren't there. These intermittent sources are only useful to reduce a local source costs which is then passed on to the rest of us. Think about it. If the wind is not blowing, do they stop giving us electricity? No. until there is a found a realistic and economical way to store AC power (and there is none now) then these windmills and solar projects do nothing to reduce the power plants requirements for the grid. Huge waste of money, land, and our national image, the Bald Eagle, which we spend a lot of human lives saving with the banning of DDT.
This doesn't do anything to reduce the requirement for conventional power plants at all. They still have to power as if the windmills weren't there. These intermittent sources are only useful to reduce a local source costs which is then passed on to the rest of us. Think about it. If the wind is not blowing, do they stop giving us electricity? No. until there is a found a realistic and economical way to store AC power (and there is none now) then these windmills and solar projects do nothing to reduce the power plants requirements for the grid. Huge waste of money, land, and our national image, the Bald Eagle, which we spend a lot of human lives saving with the banning of DDT.
Earth Day Coalition in Cleveland strongly supports the LEEDCo. Offshore Wind Project.
Here's why:
1. We need to build up a diversity of domestic and renewable energy supplies that minimize our impact on global warming.
2. We need to put a significant emphasis on conservation of energy resources
3. Impact to wildlife from renewable energy projects and the wind industry appear minimal when compared to the effects of global warming
4. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and others have called climate change the number one threat to all wildlife, including birds.
5. Global warming and it’s threats to future generations are a massive overriding global concern which calls for our urgent response. The Lake Erie offshore wind project is but one of many potential solutions to curbing our dependence on and use of fossil fuels that contribute to the effects of global warming. It also carries the benefit of improving our local economy by creating new manufacturing jobs while improving local air quality and enhancing our quality of life in the great lakes region.
First of all, your phrasing of your poll question is skewed and biased. I believe everyone would like to see green energy. The question in the poll should have been solely about wind turbines in Lake Erie. Do a little research about the driving forces behind wind energy. You might find that the "GREEN" actually refers to $s. Taxpayer subsidies and tax credits will give rich foreign investors 165% of their investment back in 5 yrs.Most production and jobs go overseas ,especially China. Reducing foreign oil reliance is also a make you feel good sham, only 2% of all the electricity in all 50 states comes from oil generated electricity. At best the output of 30% of rated capacity is claimed, realistically it is actually around 10%-15%. They will never pay for themselves,period. When Ted Kennedy was alive you saw how rabid he was against offshore wind turbines at Martha's Vinyard . The rich and powerful always have the NIMBY syndrome don't they? Why?
Wind doesn't work. Our society depends on reliable energy, which wind can't deliver. The billions of dollars spent on wind energy could be spent on better scrubbers, mini-nuclear reactors, and energy conservation. Do your homework and you will see that wind will not even slow down global warming. The very wild places that we should be protecting are being destroyed by industrial wind projects. The only ones who win with wind are developers and landowners. Wind has a huge footprint and very little output. I used to support industrial wind until I discovered that the wind industry is a big scam dating back to ENRON.
Total waste of money. Do your research.
And who worded your poll answers? The corporate wind propaganda machine?
Cleveland's lake front is one of its greatest assets and to descreate it with a bunch of propellers is not a good idea.
All the equipment will be imported and create very few jobs locally. Everyone is for renewable energy when it is done right.
We need to do something. The information about global warming and dimimished resources isn't going to go away. These renewable "clean" energy resources can take upwards of a decade to begin to turn a marginable profit or advantage to the general population. We can't wait until we are depleted of energy resources to take action. This is a logical step and appears to be free of contaminates versus other renewable resources so I'm all for the start of our local governments taking action and the steps necessary to sustain growth and building infrastructure for the 21st century and beyond.
"Eyesore" is NOT the issue. The issue is how much are you willing to pay for reliable electricity, and how much coal or oil they actually offset. The devices cost $2MM per MW on land upfront. Over 50% more in water. At best they will produce 30% of their rated capacity, annualized, or 300 kW (on average) for every MW installed. There are 8760 hours in a year, and PJM (our grid operator) typically pays around $0.035 to $0.04 per kW hour. So for every $2MM spent up front, we get $0.04 * 8,760 * 300 kW per year, or $105,000 per year.
The devices last, about twenty years, but require major maintenance after the warranties expire (three to five years). Assuming no tax, no lease payments, no insurance, no decommissioning, no cost of borrowing, no maintenance, no owner profit on equity and no other ongoing expense of any kind, the break even is around 30 years on a twenty year device. Where does the money come from? It comes from our childrens' futures, and from the public services that provided real value but were reduced or eliminated to pay for wind with your tax dollars. LESS THAN HALF OF THE EQUIVALENT GROSS REVENUES FROM WIND COME FROM SELLING ELECTRICITY AT MARKET RATES ! The rest is a giant reverse Robin Hood scheme that is set up to create huge profits for investors and utilities at taxpayer expense.
So are you "all for green energy?" The honest answer is that you aren't willing to pay much more for it, but you are forced to anyway. Numerous unbiased polls around the country show this.
Two other factors off the financial statements of wind LLCs influence the proposition as well: Sporadic, weather-based energy bursts do not replace coal burning or reduce GHG emissions. Reactive power required to keep the grids in balance is much more emissions intensive due to the constant "city driving" conditions wind energy necessitates for them. While reactive power (typically natural gas turbines similar to jet engines) supporting wind - and wind together - can replace coal burning (uneconomically), high efficiency (but less adaptive) natural gas plants can do the same job alone with nearly the same emissions avoidance and at a third the cost. So to eliminate coal, natural gas is the "Eureka, baby" fuel, but the wind infrastructure is redundant, expensive and is the tail that wags the dog of inefficiency in our grids.
The second cost that fails to show up on wind company financial statements is sprawl, or it's opposite, POWER DENSITY. Power density implies reliable streams of energy over time, and when needed. About 1/4 of wind energy's output falls into this category, often called "capacity credit" or "capacity value" as opposed to the less relevant, all inclusive term "capacity factor." PJM bidding rules currently offer that wind will be available when needed most about 13% of the time. (Which 13% of that time still being in question until near the moment it happens). GHG free nuclear energy is given a 92% capacity credit, and resides on a campus about 1/2 square mile.
On land, the impact radius for wind devices (noise, physical hazards, wildlife, etc.) is at least 1/3 mile, making its land sprawl per unit of dependable capacity about 2,000 times greater than nuclear. 2,000 times! It is no wonder so many people come out of the woodwork to object, and those people don't even realize the wind energy value proposition is so terrible!
I am ready for the industry to respond here saying this analysis contains "MISINFORMATION." This is their standard defense. Too bad their standard defense isn't to say we have closed any number of coal plants. Wind never has and never will, because while the affordable can be replaced, by government force, with the extravagantly expensive, the reliable can never be replaced by the unreliable in the realm of utility scale electricity service. Moderated public debate in Cleveland? Count me in! Slander this information? That's a pretty embarrassing excuse for resu
Yes you are right about the jobs; however they won't go to Clevelanders they will go to those who are trained. Lorain county got a jump start on that in 2008. LCC offered a Wind Turbine technician program for free! Lorain participates are certified and ready to go. Don't expect Clevelanders to get these jobs, because once again Clevelanders are day late and a dollar short. Move to Lorain!
Eyesores? Are you serious? First of all, that's an opinion not everyone shares, second, that is far from a legitimate reason to not use renewable energy. I agree with the comment that on top of tall buildings might be better, but why not utilize otherwise unused space in our lake? Also, the construction and maintenance of the windmills will bring jobs, and help Cleveland present an image of being a leader in clean energy.
I, absolutely, am in favor of wind turbines in Lake Erie, along the freeways, or anywhere else someone wants to put them. I don't see them as an eye sore. To me they are beautiful because we are utilizing the wind as a source of energy. Oil will run out and is already too costly but the wind will always be there for us. Best of all, we don't have to import it !!!
They are eyesores. And production does not marry up with demand making them ineffecient. You can't make the wind blow harder (if at all) when demand is up. By the way the poll it very bias. You ask if they are for or against wind turbines in Lake Eire yet by the 'yes' response you state that 'I'm all for renewable energy'. Just because you are for renewable energy does not mean you want these eyesores cluttering up our landscape.
Only if the wind turbines are efficient. Putting devices on top of tall buildings might be cheaper and more efficient.