by Peter Panepento
If you think the debate over plans to build a tires-to-energy plant on the Lake Erie shore has been intense, brace yourself for what could be an even more caustic battle over the possibility of wind farms on the Great Lakes.
The Washington Post reports on the early efforts to develop offshore wind farms in Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
And I remember hearing similar ideas floated for Erie’s Lake Erie shoreline years ago.
Writes Post reporter Kari Lydersen:
Last week a task force chaired by the Cuyahoga County prosecutor released an installment in an ongoing $1 million feasibility study giving the project a green light on geologic and wind-potential grounds. If the study continues to yield positive findings, construction of two to 10 wind turbines and a research station could start in about two years.
“We believe we are in a race to be first in the Great Lakes, and by doing so, the pilot project will blaze a trail for economic opportunities for the area,” said Ryan Miday, spokesman for the task force. “This is about making this area a hub for wind energy that brings in other supply-chain component manufacturers. It’s a vision of creating a new industry in this area centered around wind.”
Meanwhile, Wisconsin is exploring three offshore wind projects, with public comment periods in progress, according to the state Public Service Commission.
If recent history is a guide, such an effort would meet with huge resistance from environmentalists and from those who don’t want to see their waterfront views obstructed by massive wind turbines.
Plans to build turbines off of Cape Cod, for instance, have been at the center of a major controversy.
You can bet any plans for a farm would meet similar resistance here.
Contrary to those who believe that Erie folks are alone in their protests about proposed developments, such protest isn’t anti-development. It’s part of the American process.
A major change to the Lake Erie shoreline should be debated before it happens — not after it’s too late.
That is what is happening with the Erie Renewable Energy proposal.
If that plan does ultimately get approved, it will happen only after the public has had a say.
That said, I’d love to hear your thoughts on the potential for wind energy in the Great Lakes. Is it an idea worth pursuing? Is it a necessity for fulfilling the region’s long-term energy needs? Will it create more harm than good? Is it too soon to tell?
Let’s get the debate started.
After more than six years working as a journalist in Erie, I'm now the web editor for the Chronicle of Philanthropy in Washington, D.C., and the publisher of GlobalErie.com. I still maintain close ties to Erie - a community that I care about deeply. I hope this Web site can help inspire a better future for Erie.
Jim
October 8th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Timely discussion. Yesterday, Pennlive.com reported that it appears unlikely that Pennsylvania’s legislature will do anything this session relative to electric.
http://www.pennlive.com
The senate consumer protection committee said that the chances of any such legislation passing this week are “slim” after days and weeks of negotiations involving Gov. Ed Rendell, top lawmakers, and executives from five major utilities. In other words, another failure in the legislative process, exactly the same result as the previous three sessions over the preceding six years. With electric rate caps set to expire, the legislature has failed in its responsibility to do anything, except contribute to global warming through six plus years of hot air and no progress.
This is illustrative of the continuing failure of this nation to develop and implement any coherent energy policy, that impact production of both traditional and alternative sources of energy.
Peter is right, Erie would kill a proposal for alternative energy production in a nanno second, just as happened with the Ripley New York wind farm, and currently with the tires to energy proposal, or the past defeat of the waste generation proposal Tullio advanced decades ago, or the current continuing opposition to the bio-fuel plant operating on Erie’s bay front, exporting product to Europe, providing jobs, and export sales helping in the balance of trade battle. Over at GoErie there are often postings blasting the entire bio-fuel industry.
The fact is, Erie has historically been anti energy production, and continues to be. Another fact is, no public figure has been willing to come in with an effort to change that anti production bias, as Schember’s decision not to make a decision on the tires to energy plant illustrates. (A major disappointment as a council appointee.) His bank decided he shouldn’t voice a vote on the matter. Maybe bad for business?
Meanwhile, with the caps expiration electric rates are set to increase between 20 and 63 percent, depending on territory.
Talk about need for a change in thinking. The time for that was any time after 1996, when the current law was passed.
Dale Hannah
October 8th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
I can’t think of a better place for wind turbines than either in the Lake or up on the bluff. I live very near the lake, and the wind is constant and certainly strong enough to power the larger turbines. That condition prevails from the Ohio border (at least) clear to Buffalo, where they have several turbines close to the lake.
Yes, it is time for those who are so worried about a few birds, to consider how many birds, animals, and even humans are sickened or killed by the overuse of fossil fuels. Wind power, like solar, has so small a carbon footprint as to be of no practical consequence.
Jim, the use of biofuel is key to helping reduce our dependence on oil.
I am sure it we had a market in this country, the fuel would not be flowing to Rotterdam, it would be put to good use in our own backyard. And you must understand, most of those who comment on topix would not last a second on a site like GlobalErie.
I agree that we need to push governments, from local to state to federal to get off their ample butts and move on this issue!!
Phil G
October 8th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Just a quick comment. I used to live near TREC. Their windmill can be very loud. Just keep that in mind.
Dale Hannah
October 8th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
That would not be much of a factor if they were a few miles into the lake.
I can’t see them being located that closely to a residential area, at least where I am located there is plenty of farm land on the hills, and the income from a wind farm lease would probably be more than welcome to the landowner.
Ed Tonkin
October 9th, 2008 at 7:40 am
Peter you are correct that these discussions are part of a very American process, but how come it always seems that the NIMBY’s and their ilk win in these arguements./ Ideas good, bad, and indifferent get tied up in endless legal wrangeling. There must be some way to create a streamlined process for these projects. If its no good, then it goes down quick. If its good then building can get going.
As to wind power in the Great Lakes, wonderful idea, however will it work without state subsides? These alternate enegy ideas will only work in the long run if they do not need subsidization by the taxpayer. We need a risk taking form of capitalism right now in energy that is in short supply.
I had an idea back when I was trying to run against English in 2006, I called it the Longitude Bomb, based on how the British figured out how it easily find longitude. I’ll post it on my Globalerie.com column The Gulf of…How do we encourage this in Pennsylvania? Call your nearest legislator and question and push them on this issue.
TonyF
October 9th, 2008 at 8:39 am
It’s unlikely that Pennsylvania’s legislature will do anything, let alone anything relative to electric.
Jim
October 9th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Actually, according to this mornings paper, the legislature did pass a an electric conservation bill, containing buying rules for utilities, and requiring smart meters, which they can charge you for, and requiring utilities to find ways to reduce consumption by 2011. While they are making much of this legislation, they essentially sidestepped the cap expiration issue, as reported previously. Best way to conserve consumption, drive high consuming industries out, or price them out, of Pennsylvania. This is a massive anti jobs piece of legislation in my estimation, just the kind of stuff that makes Pennsylvania non competitive.
According to this mornings article, the legislators were unable to break utility opposition, and senators dropped a provision to require the companies to reduce their rates to reflect savings which they predicted when their industry was deregulated in 1996. So the dramatic increases, anticipated to range between 20 and 63% remain.
Now before we start charging off against the utility industry, like we are doing now with the financial crises, it would do everyone well to remember this is a legislatively mandated failure to protect rate payers. Lobbyists have prevailed on LEGISLATORS.
A truly sad day for Pennsylvania.
Danny Lucas
October 9th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Wind = Electric Energy.
True, but it requires fossil fuel backup every time ( natural gas, usually) since wind is not dependable every moment.
Wind = Fuel seems a bit more intriguing to me.
The dependability factor, and duplicate benefit, go UP.
More on it…..
http://www.windfuels.com/
Dennis Stratton
October 19th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Hi All, I have been leading the fight against the Tire Burning Plant. For work I have been moving over size loads as an escort. NY is building up to 2500 windmills all over the state. Most are located on top of hills, but 8 are built in Buffalo on the lake in Lackawanna where the old steel mills were. From what I’ve heard is that they pay land owners 11 thousand a year, and free electricity. If the state is going to subsidize alternative energy wouldn’t be be better that it is clean, and renewable. Do you know that twice amendments have be attached to the recent energy bill trying to reclassify burning tires as a clean, renewable resource. The first time was by John Evans the Rep. for Girard, and the west side. None of these windmills are going to a residential are. Where the Tire Incinerator wants to build on Erie’s east side at Hammermill site. There are 5 schools within a mile of it. The Lake is 500 yards away. And in their own Air Emission Application there will be almost 3 million pounds a year of various toxins, and particulates. This will harm people, the lake, and environment. I support windmills.
Dennis Stratton
Network Field Guy
December 28th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
I have a windmill in my property.. i paid about 2500 bucks for it and set everything up myself. Cant say I’m a tower expert, but it was not hard… whoops wheres that permit!!! Anywho… my simple windmill is enough to power my home for about 5 hours a day. Yes - my frig, stove, 50in plasma and all of the equip.., lights.. all the norm stuff! If i buy a cpl more or even a bigger one, I could easily be power independent!!!! Which by the way… penelec pays me for the overflow of energy when I do not use it!! The bad thing… like always… they are getting the better end of the deal… So long story short… wind power is good for Erie! I’m sure it would lower taxes and the price we pay for electric in the area!!!