Foraker

I think your math is correct, I misinterpreted the "h" -- your calculations look right, fwiw. (or better) This is a very important observation, thank you. Probably the key question then is what are the peak electricity demands -- if peak output is only 3MW/acre, how many acres do we need to meet peak demand? What if our peak demand is 16,000 MWh per month (30 days, 24h/day) -- 22.22 MW (?) a day? Maybe 3MW released "at a time" (how fast?) is sufficient. My understanding is that we lose a lot of energy before electricity ever reaches our homes. https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/flow-graphs/electricity.php And as long as no one wants to live next to a power plant, and the electricity is cheap enough, that's not a big problem. But if we can generate electricity closer to where we live, we could greatly reduce the transmission losses -- and the need to produce as much electricity to account for that. That's another benefit of locally-produced wind and solar electricity.

Well, it looks like Ohio consumes about 152 TWh annually. https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/05/f22/OH-Energy Sector Risk Profile.pdf So if we want to store 30%, that would be 45.6 TWh. 3MW/acre would require 15M acres. (Cuyahoga County is nearly 800,000 acres). At about 10% of Ohio's population, and assuming Ohioans use the same amount of electricity, maybe we need about 1,520,000 acres -- going to have to stack. At $200/kWh, is that about $30T? If we can reduce that cost by 80% (conservative estimate, assuming Form Energy's 10% of cost of lithium-ion is overly optimistic) ($40/kwh), the cost would drop to below $6T. (Assuming my math is right.) (10% of Ohio's storage would be $600B for Cuyahoga County) That's not going to happen overnight! I know electricity consumption varies widely over a year, but if we assume that that 152TWh are evenly spread over the year (365 days) and we want to store 3 days of electricity (instead of 30% of the annual consumption), that would be 1.25 TWh. At $40/kwh, that's $50B. Ohio spends about $3B on highway construction and maintenance per year. So if we could invest $2B per year, we'd hit the target in 25-30 years.

No. I did search for the report itself, which is here: https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/great-lakes-wind-feasibility-study In the "Evaluation of Site Conditions" section, pages 13-19 discuss the wind speeds. This report indicates that "new data" shows higher wind speeds than an earlier report, and discusses seasonal/monthly variation in average wind speeds, but does not appear to address consistency. It appears to rely on modeling wind speeds rather than a ton of actual data -- which reinforces the need for a trial, such as the Icebreaker project, to prove whether continued development would be cost-effective. I also took a quick review of the White Paper to see what conclusions they drew. One of the reasons that lake wind was determined to not be cost effective in New York State is the lack of "proximity and direct access to load centers" and the presence of land-based solar and wind installations that would offer competing rates to a lake-based wind farm -- I'm not sure the same applies to the Icebreaker project, which would connect directly to Cleveland, and to/near the site of a former power plant which should facilitate connection to the grid. And we don't have any large wind farms on land near Cleveland that would be competing. As for the view, see page A-4 or A-6 for a view of a 400 MW wind farm 5 miles offshore with the top of the tower at 112m (about 367 ft), with following pictures at 10 miles offshore. (You'll probably have to zoom in, they're hard to see -- and the illustrated wind farm takes up the entire horizon, in contrast to the 6 turbines proposed for the Icebreaker project, proposed to be 8 miles off shore (I couldn't find the height).)

According to the article, the study in NY said that the offshore wind was only 10% higher than the onshore wind, and therefore the 400x cost to build offshore couldn't be justified. Building on a breakwall might reduce construction and maintenance costs and still get some higher-wind advantage. Agreed -- someone posted a mock-up image here and at 6 miles out the turbines were tiny. The "ruins my view" crowd are laughable. And until some turbines are actually built out in the lake there is a lot we really don't know -- one of the major selling points of the Icebreaker project was to test the theory about higher winds and improved efficiencies from building out in the lake, and I'm super-disappointed that construction didn't commence immediately after last year's court decision.

Recent study on offshore wind off Lake Erie's coast of New York suggested that offshore wind was far more expensive for not much more wind (and therefore difficult to justify) as compared to onshore wind farm. That study is now being cited by opponents of Cleveland's Icebreaker project. Which still hasn't gotten off the ground since the positive court decision last year. That suggests it is unlikely to move forward any time soon. https://www.post-journal.com/news/local-news/2023/01/ohio-group-hails-lake-turbine-study/ Frankly, I don't find wind turbines "unsightly" and would welcome them off our shore. And I have seen videos of catastrophic turbine blade failures that make me think that they SHOULD be offshore, away from any homes that could be in the path of debris from a failure. To cut the cost, why not just build some along a breakwall closer to shore, with a road along the breakwall that could be used by maintenance crews (and fishermen)? (or if Burke is closed....)

I've seen too many comments on here that imply that lithium-ion batteries are the only (and too expensive) option. Lithium-ion batteries are "great" for certain applications because they are relatively compact, lightweight, and durable enough to survive a car crash (or a dropped laptop). But the weight and size of the battery and impact resistance are not the most important issues for a battery that's just going to sit in one spot and serve a neighborhood or a factory. There are a number of companies developing liquid "flow" batteries. They're relatively cheap, so they can be oversized and charged "when the sun is shining" for use when the grid goes down. There are several different types, and most are still in the development stage, but some are being put into use already. https://www.engineering.com/story/flow-batteries-versus-lithium-ion-whats-best-for-grid-scale-storage Imagine if every block in Cuyahoga County had a 10x12 "shed" with a flow battery, charged by the grid and by solar panels on all the houses in the neighborhood. Peaker plants might run twice a year, and power outages would be limited to a single block. EDIT: Another article explaining vanadium flow batteries in use in Australia. https://cosmosmagazine.com/technology/vanadium-flow-batteries/

I suspect that they acquired this site to give them something to develop along with the "ballpark village" developments that the Guardians have suggested they will pursue after the ballpark renovations. That could mean we would see some plans around 2027. On the other hand, Gilbert may want to replace that parking garage that Stark shut down, and to build a new garage before the ballpark village concept takes out part of the existing garage adjacent the ballpark/arena. It would be nice if they could build the garage and laneway, as Stark had planned (and the city already blessed), on at least a part of the site and, a la The Beacon, build the garage in such a way to enable a tower to rise above it later to a TBD height.

The solution to more-affordable housing is More Housing. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/1/3/theres-no-such-thing-as-affordable-housing

I still remember the blank look when I asked the librarian to show me the book of the Ohio Constitution. 🤦‍♂️ I may has well have asked for the book of the entire federal code. The Ohio Constitution has been amended so many times that it's more similar to the federal code than the U.S. Constitution, and just as accessible to the average man on the street.

A HUGE success. LOL https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/09/23/abraham-accords-israel-palestine-two-years/

If you want an effective, unbiased accident-deterrent, speed cameras are the way to go. But freedom, or something.

Putting aside the AirBnB business, I don't get the joke. How and why does "adding more housing" not lower the price of housing? Are we in a situation where there is only enough demand for the housing we already have? At worst, if the demand is really high this little additional housing won't meet it and housing costs will continue to rise, although presumably at a slower rate because of the increased supply. Doesn't adding "market rate housing" allow "the market" to set the rate? Wouldn't "the market" be the most efficient way to set the price? Or are the "NIMBY's" you're referring to the Ohio City landlords, who don't want to see their rental rates go down?

I recently read an article about Southwest Airlines's recent debacle and how Reagan's legalization of stock buybacks contributed to this current disaster. And also to the decline in American manufacturing as well. Why? Because CEOs can boost their income in two ways: (1) invest in employees and equipment, R&D, and marketing to develop new products, make better products, improve efficiencies, and grab new customers, or (2) "invest" in company stock buy-backs to increase the value of the management's holdings. Granted, no company would last long if all it did was seek to buy back its stock, but it was a more surefire way to increase the value of the stock and #1 was not, so #2 has come to be preferred whenever possible. The previous Southwest CEO did so even as lower-level managers were screaming for equipment improvements. Another gift from Reagan (along with unlimited and unauditable defense spending) that just keeps on giving. Can anyone explain the contrary opinion, of how stock buybacks encourage innovations and strengthen American manufacturing?

This will be an improvement and I will be happy to see it move forward. But the pedestrian access to this facility, and the new building(s), and the entire Cedar-Warrensville business district, remains really awful.

A lot of law firms are downsizing their office space needs with more people working remotely at least part-time. I heard that Tucker is subleasing a significant part of at least one floor to a smaller law firm moving from another downtown office building.

Point taken that highways existed before Eisenhower saw the Autobahn and the Autobahn wasn't some transformative experience that led immediately to the interstate system in the US. But I think you're dismissing the impact that Eisenhower's (and a lot of US troops') experience with the Autobahn. Eisenhower came home and gushed about the Autobahn and a lot of troops could back him up because they had experienced it. Probably a lot more than had driven on the PA turnpike. (Similarly, think about how poorly most of the US thinks of train travel, probably because they only have experience with Amtrak, if even that, rather than the Shinkansen or TGV. If we took tens of thousands of Americans oversees to ride high speed rail, I have no doubt that it would be easier to push investment in fast trains here, something which is going to happen much slower but will grow as more Americans experience high speed rail in the US.) Even though the Autobahn wasn't Eisenhower's first experience with a highway, the Autobahn showed Eisenhower how a federal network of roads like the Pennsylvania Turnpike could be stitched together to great effect. Rather than have each state (like PA) randomly deciding what roadways to upgrade to "turnpikes," Eisenhower pushed the federal government to plan and organize a national system with standardized design guidelines, and he touted the Autobahn as an exemplary model. All of which is to say, yes, you are right that the Autobahn wasn't the first experience with highways, but it was a validating experience of how a connected network of roadways could actually work really well. The Autobahn did have some impact rather than no impact. Maybe the US's development of an interstate highway system would have happened anyway, but it would have happened much more slowly and probably without federal guidance in the absence of the Autobahn.

Yes, and Eisenhower worked on one of those convoys and experienced the difficulties in moving troops quickly on existing roads. The Autobahn was the inspiration for how to solve a known problem.

Like you, I am optimistic that connecting the albatross to the convention center will make the albatross a more useful albatross, but I'm not holding my breath.

Seriously -- if the "official" time is only kept on the referee's watch, there's no reason you can't have a wireless signal from there to the scoreboard.

Why do I have a really bad feeling about this....

Totally agree that we need to get the zoning along Carnegie fixed, and the precedent set by Dealer Tire should have spurred that change. The setback in this project is perpetuating the problem and reinforces the need for change.

I sort of agree with you both. We are always going to have "major" streets that are designed to move cars, and that's not going to change if we just switch to electric cars. And we have several parallel "major" streets between downtown and University Circle -- Carnegie, Euclid, Chester -- they don't all need a transit lane and separate bike lanes and built-to-the-street pedestrian amenities, and we probably don't have the resources in this community to redevelop all of them to the same highest standard. And I don't think we should expect each of these streets to be built with mixed-use pedestrianism along their full length. Having a walkable business district around intersections spaced about a 30-minute walk apart would be a great start. The Healthline has done a good job of reducing car traffic on Euclid. Let's continue to improve Euclid -- can we get separated bike lanes and better pedestrian-oriented business districts along the route? More density at those intermediate business districts? Let Carnegie continue to be the alternate heavy-traffic route (along with the Opportunity Corridor) for now. This isn't the most ideal project, but it's better than what was there before and the earlier phase is built up to the street on the Euclid side, so I'll take it. Take the good over the perfect.

🤣🤣😉

Are there any suburban communities today with the density and ridership to justify a remote hub?

I wholeheartedly agree, we shouldn't be putting too much into the specifics of how this "plan" looks. There are things that I really like about this plan, however, such as the idea of opening Tower City toward the riverfront and including a riverfront park. I don't like the rendered proposal, but providing a gateway to the riverfront and a park would give more people a reason to travel through Tower City. Let's see what Bedrock does with Tower City, which they should be able to start without any assistance from the city. Meanwhile, hopefully Cleveland, the County, and the Port Authority can find a way to stabilize the shore and improve the utilities in the area. By the time that is done, we can revisit what park space will look like, what space rail will need, what land is really available for further development, and what that development actually looks like. I'm as impatient as anyone, but actual buildings between TC and the river and their specific design seems to be quite a few years down the road.