21 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

 

Thanks Yabo.  This only reinforces my point.  If you look at their map, the risk factor is the same here as it is in southern Ontario, with a much smaller footprint.  

 

 

understood, and I apologize if I wasn’t clear... my comment was aimed at the industry as a whole -not specifically our location

2 hours ago, YABO713 said:

 

So, this actually isn't true. Wind turbines have proven to be a real problem for migratory birds and also, in an even more significant way, bats. And when migratory birds are going South/North for breeding. Losing 3-5% of the flock each trip has significant long term impacts. A major problem with this is that the statistics we've come to rely upon are often truly biased. I.e. NWF will only include birds found within a limited radius around each wind mill in its death count. 

 

One of the major problems is that renewable energy providers aren't able to sacrifice a 4-6 hour window (during typical flight times) because wind is still at a point where it's only a viable replacement when: 1) Farms of 25+ fans are used, and 2) the turbines are run full time. 

 

There are some other options, though - including painting the fans themselves. It's obviously not a reason to abandon renewable energy via turbines, but I think we too quickly turn our backs on the animals it impacts because it fits nicely with our own environmentalism. 

The point is there are NO BIRDS currently flying around where the turbines are now.  The studies of the wind turbines are in fields where birds likely are. It is fallacy to match a spot 1-4 miles out into lake erie with turbines that are on shore. 

  Even during migration the birds are not going to be flying that low if they plan on making it across Lake Erie at that point.  If we were sticking them by the Erie islands you would have a point. 

I also doubt that bats would fly that far out over water at night looking for insects. 

If there are no birds around, then there is no issue. (But don't birds--like every other animal--look out for hazards in its paths anyway?) But what i was going to say if birds are present, couldn't some kind of high frequency sound be emitted to keep them away? I think that's what airports do to keep birds away and from getting sucked into engines. Many big airports are located right on the water (LGA, JFK, to name a few) so seagulls would otherwise be destroying jet engines left and right, but this is not the case. I wonder if BKL uses them.

 

3 minutes ago, Pugu said:

 I wonder if BKL uses them.

 

 

Burke has airport employees drive routinely around the perimeter on the runways and fire a starter pistol, which is a common mitigation strategy at airports with large bird populations near by.   It's not 100% effective as this just scares birds from the immediate vicinity.   There still may be issues on the departure and arrival paths, as the "Miracle on the Hudson" US Airways flight showed us at LGA. 

 

^Thanks. Re BKL, that doesn't seem like a very good approach at all. Very labor intensive, and as you said, not wholly effective.  I just googled and there are a bunch of companies out there. Here's one:

 

"The Mega Blaster PRO repels birds using recorded predator cries and bird distress calls, and covers up to 30 acres."

 

https://bird-x.com/bird-products/electronic/sonic/airport-bird-control-system/ 

 

Such a system or similar could be put by the wind turbines if necessary.

Edited August 27, 20204 yr by Pugu

3 minutes ago, Pugu said:

^Thanks. Re BKL, that doesn't seem like a very good approach at all. Very labor intensive, and as you said, not wholly effective.  I just googled and there are a bunch of companies out there. Here's one:

 

"The Mega Blaster PRO repels birds using recorded predator cries and bird distress calls, and covers up to 30 acres."

 

https://bird-x.com/bird-products/electronic/sonic/airport-bird-control-system/ 

 

Such a system or similar could be put by the wind turbines if necessary.

 

I've owned home variants of these type of devices and the reviews are mixed as to their effectiveness.   Humans chasing off birds with cars and noise is very effective, until they come back.   

^A smart bird that is hanging around may get wise to the same distress or whatever sounds. But a MIGRATORY bird by definition would not have been at a place in Lake Erie before, so it may work in this use case.

10 hours ago, Ineffable_Matt said:

Amen! It is like arguing that we need to subsidize coal because otherwise, what would happen to those poor coal miners? This project should have been completed years ago but, due to a complete lack of leadership locally and staunch anti-renewable dunderheads at the state level, we are STILL talking about f'ing birds...

Unfortunately everyone will still be talking about birds as long as the fossil fuel industry is lining the pockets of the politicians in Columbus.

 

They've done the research and garnered most of the necessary regulatory approvals.

 

It's not about migratory bird patterns.

 

It's about a random group of obstructionists, who are in deep with the fossil fuel industry.  Follow the money.

Edited August 27, 20204 yr by Frmr CLEder

On 8/27/2020 at 7:45 PM, Frmr CLEder said:

Unfortunately everyone will still be talking about birds as long as the fossil fuel industry is lining the pockets of the politicians in Columbus.

 

They've done the research and garnered most of the necessary regulatory approvals.

 

It's not about migratory bird patterns.

 

It's about a random group of obstructionists, who are in deep with the fossil fuel industry.  Follow the money.

???

The reason for the demise of this project is so obvious it's laughable. 

 

States like California have used wind turbine technology in their mountains and deserts for over 40 years. As one of the most environmentally conscious-geographies on the entire planet, I find it hard to believe that they are less concerned about protecting bird/bat species and the environment than a former industrial, still wanna-be fossil-fuel producing state like Ohio.

Sorry, we don't buy it. Let's give the citizens credit for some level of intelligence.

 

If it were up to these politicians, who want to MAGA, the Cuyahoga River would still be catching fire, Lake Erie would be a dying lake and the streets of Cleveland would still be filled with choking particulate matter, sulfates, CO2 and acid rain; all as the obstructionists enrich their own financial standing and quality of life. Those days are long gone. Get over it!

 

It's time for the residents of Ohio to replace these dated, out-of-touch politicians, who are so £ellbent on protecting and reliving an era that has long since passed and, while economically advantageous at the time, proved to be so detrimental to the health and wellbeing of humans and the planet.

 

The focus should be on new, clean, innovative and renewable technologies of the future, not the perpetuation of old, non-renewable, environmentally unfriendly, self-destructive energies of the past.

Edited August 30, 20204 yr by Frmr CLEder

 

If you must bring politics into a development thread at all, it had better be VERY tightly linked to the project under discussion.

ARGH!!!: ‘Poison pill’ ruling for Lake Erie wind farm will stand, according to draft order

 

https://www.cleveland.com/open/2020/09/poison-pill-ruling-for-lake-erie-wind-farm-will-stand-according-to-draft-order.html

 

"COLUMBUS, Ohio—The Ohio Power Siting Board is preparing to rule that it will not revisit its decision to allow the construction of Icebreaker Wind, the nation’s first freshwater offshore wind farm, in Lake Erie, with restrictions that backers say would doom the project.

According to a draft ruling obtained by cleveland.com, the board is set during its meeting Thursday to reject calls by both supporters and opponents of the six-turbine, 20-megawatt wind farm to reconsider its May 21 ruling."

...

"As for the “poison pill” argument, Randazzo wrote that the staff recommendation would have blocked the construction of the wind farm until the wildlife risks “are adequately identified and mitigated.” The board’s ruling, he asserted, is a way for Icebreaker Wind to begin construction sooner."

 

I have a hard time believing that staff was recommending to block construction based on wildlife risks.  Is there any way to confirm or reject this statement?  Especially considering another part of the draft ruling states that the board doesn't have to rely on its staff's recommendations.

 

Plans for Lake Erie wind farm clear a major hurdle, as ‘poison pill’ restriction is lifted

https://www.cleveland.com/open/2020/09/plans-for-lake-erie-wind-farm-clear-a-major-hurdle-as-poison-pill-restriction-is-lifted.html

 

This news is so exciting. This means jobs for our region. This will support jobs at our local steel mills. They have committed to training local Ohioans to become technicians for the turbines. They also plan to open their North American headquarters here. JOBS JOBS JOBS

After hearing an radio ad earlier this week paid by "boaters" against the turbines, I'm glad to see this surprising decision. Hopefully things start to move a bit faster so there are no more u-turns or further changes in approvals. And the residents of Bratenahl can stop pretending this is going to impede their views when it's 8-10 miles out vs the 3.5 mile water intake crib.

Edited September 17, 20204 yr by infrafreak

2 hours ago, Metz44 said:

Plans for Lake Erie wind farm clear a major hurdle, as ‘poison pill’ restriction is lifted

https://www.cleveland.com/open/2020/09/plans-for-lake-erie-wind-farm-clear-a-major-hurdle-as-poison-pill-restriction-is-lifted.html

 

This news is so exciting. This means jobs for our region. This will support jobs at our local steel mills. They have committed to training local Ohioans to become technicians for the turbines. They also plan to open their North American headquarters here. JOBS JOBS JOBS

From the article:

 

“Earlier this week, cleveland.com reported that board members received a draft order that rejected both sides' arguments and preserved the May order as is – including the limits on nighttime use. State Rep. Jeff Crossman, a Parma Democrat and a non-voting board member, said it appeared to him that voting board members were “caught off-guard by the story” and became concerned that their decision would look “pre-decided.””

 

Yet another example of the critical role that local media plays in society. I’m glad this thing seems to finally be working out. 

Meanwhile California's Wind Farms, in existence since the Carter Administration, have overcome political, environmental and economic barriers and have even been upgraded and modernized.

 

https://earther.gizmodo.com/californias-hills-are-haunted-by-the-ghosts-of-wind-ene-1845534109

Edited March 30, 20214 yr by Frmr CLEder

Not specifically about LEED Co or Great Lakes wind farms, but still good news

 

The Biden administration makes a swath of ocean between New York and New Jersey an offshore wind zone

Lisa Friedman and Brad Plumer - New York Times - Mar. 29, 2021

 

 

"Officials also announced $3 billion in loan guarantees available to offshore wind projects. ... Separately, the White House is setting a goal of deploying 30,000 megawatts of offshore wind in the United States by 2030 — a goal it claimed will create about 75,000 jobs — and devoting funding already approved by Congress to port infrastructure and transmission development. ... Officials estimate it will create 44,000 jobs directly in the offshore wind sector, like building and installing turbines, and 33,000 indirect jobs."

 

^ And once again, while initially at the forefront of getting a project on the board, Ohio is going to fall behind.

An update regarding the legal challenges to the Icebreaker wind turbines.  

 

Condo owners’ appeal could be last legal hurdle for offshore wind in Great Lakes

"A legal challenge by two lakeview condo dwellers seeking to block Lake Erie’s first offshore wind farm faces a high legal bar before the Ohio Supreme Court — with equally high stakes for clean energy in the region."

 

https://energynews.us/2021/07/20/condo-owners-appeal-could-be-last-legal-hurdle-for-offshore-wind-in-great-lakes/

These people in Bratenahl are clearly on the take from Murray Energy, a coal distribution company. Unreal that something so transparent can hold up a project of this size, what a freaking joke.

 

26 minutes ago, smimes said:

An update regarding the legal challenges to the Icebreaker wind turbines.  

 

Condo owners’ appeal could be last legal hurdle for offshore wind in Great Lakes

"A legal challenge by two lakeview condo dwellers seeking to block Lake Erie’s first offshore wind farm faces a high legal bar before the Ohio Supreme Court — with equally high stakes for clean energy in the region."

 

https://energynews.us/2021/07/20/condo-owners-appeal-could-be-last-legal-hurdle-for-offshore-wind-in-great-lakes/

 

I'd really love to see their viewshed that they feel is threatened. FWIW they're not even on the top floor of this building (that (aside from a balcony) doesn't even face the lake...).

 

Edited July 20, 20213 yr by GISguy

1 hour ago, GISguy said:

 

 

I'd really love to see their viewshed that they feel is threatened. FWIW they're not even on the top floor of this building (that (aside from a balcony) doesn't even face the lake...).

 

Particularly when the turbines are going to be 8-10 miles away…

14 hours ago, ragarcia said:

Particularly when the turbines are going to be 8-10 miles away…

Exactly. I did a project on this in college years and years ago and we were theoretically siting turbines off Erie. Long story short, they were unnoticeable by almost all buildings even a handful of miles offshore. 

Edited July 21, 20213 yr by GISguy

On 7/20/2021 at 9:50 PM, GISguy said:

Exactly. I did a project on this in college years and years ago and we were theoretically siting turbines off Erie. Long story short, they were unnoticeable by almost all buildings even a handful of miles offshore. 

What would the theoretical capacity for number of turbines sited off NEO be? Could we place 1000 turbines in Lake Erie? Current generation of GE and Vesta turbines are 13.5 - 15 MW range. So we talking 13-15 GW layout for the North coast with tie-ins to the PJM grid at all the decommissioned coal plants. That's 40% of Biden's off shore goal. 

Let's get the power capacity here so we can support 10s of millions of housing units for all the coasties relocating from the fires and floods to the peaceful, temperate Great Lakes region.

 

6 hours ago, KJP said:

 

If they have gone begging to the state for money this project is in real trouble -- highly unlikely to be successful.  Maybe they could say it's for a coal plant off the coast?

LEEDco is NEEDco... hurry up!

 

Unfreaken believable....    So this man bungled his effort to kill the project....   And in doing so, he could possibly kill the project....   I don't like getting political but it is amazing to me how wedded a certain group is to carbon based energy...    I believe if a tar sand pit was found in Ohio this state would spend every dime they could to get it operational....    🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬

Face it folks...the only way Ohio pols will allow turbines in Lake Erie is if they are powered by coal. While Ohio voters are trending Red (54% Republican to 46% Democrat) the most recent rendition creating congressional districts would most likely result in 12 Red and 3 Blue. Regardless of your political  leanings we have to admit that Republicans play hardball and Democrats don't. Nationwide Dems may be the majority but they constantly find themselves being outmaneuvered. Dems may be the party of policy but its the Repubs who are the party of shameless power. 

Just a reminder that the two Bratenahl residents litigating against the wind turbines are very literally stooges for the coal industry. Murray Energy has already admitted it is paying for the lawyers: https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2018/08/big_coal_joins_fight_against_l.html

31 minutes ago, StapHanger said:

Just a reminder that the two Bratenahl residents litigating against the wind turbines are very literally stooges for the coal industry. Murray Energy has already admitted it is paying for the lawyers: https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2018/08/big_coal_joins_fight_against_l.html

 

It's funny how sometimes the dead don't yet know they've passed away.

Ohio Supreme Court to hear arguments over state certificate to allow Icebreaker wind project on Lake Erie

 

 

https://www.cleveland.com/open/2021/11/ohio-supreme-court-to-hear-arguments-over-state-certificate-to-allow-icebreaker-wind-project-on-lake-erie.html

 

2 hours ago, StapHanger said:

Just a reminder that the two Bratenahl residents litigating against the wind turbines are very literally stooges for the coal industry. Murray Energy has already admitted it is paying for the lawyers: https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2018/08/big_coal_joins_fight_against_l.html

The opponents all seem to require metaphysical certitude that the project will be faultless in every respect.  Isn't that impossible in a demonstration project?

Edited November 30, 20213 yr by Dougal

22 minutes ago, Dougal said:

The opponents all seem to require metaphysical certitude that the project will be faultless in every respect.  Isn't that impossible in a demonstration project?

 

The article really should have mentioned the outrageous mercury content in the animals that the two Bratenahl residents love so much (allegedly), courtesy of the coal-fired power plants they love so much. 

 

https://www.glc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Mercury-FINAL-mediumresolution.pdf

Edited November 30, 20213 yr by surfohio

In the recent push to become self-sufficient with energy generation in light of current events, I thought maybe we'd hear more about this project, even if it doesn't get any movement itself while embroiled in legal battles. Does anyone believe the current geopolitical atmosphere would salvage this project?

why would wind turbines be any more troublesome out on lake erie than out on block island on long island sound, or a bowling green cornfield for that matter?

 

also, i see last fall the biden admin opened up a swath of the east coast for more wind farms:

 

 

 

The administration plans to build at least 16 offshore wind energy facilities by 2025.

 

The U.S. is a latecomer in the global race to build offshore wind farms to lower carbon emissions. Many countries have already expanded their renewable energy capabilities using offshore wind projects.

 

Worldwide, 6.1 gigawatts were created by new offshore wind projects last year, according to a recent report by the Global Wind Energy Council. China led the pack, adding more than 3 gigawatts, followed by the Netherlands, with 1.5 gigawatts, and Belgium, with 706 megawatts, the report said.

 

 

more:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/biden-administration-approves-second-major-offshore-wind-project-provide-power-n1284601

Why Wind Turbines in Lake Erie Are So Controversial

Plans have been in place wind turbines in our waters since 2009.

 

First proposed in 2009, the Icebreaker wind farm, located about eight miles off the coast of Cleveland, would bring six wind turbines to Lake Erie, making it the first freshwater wind farm in North America. But the project is as hated as it is loved — and its odds of moving forward took a hit recently when the Ohio House of Representatives voted against passing a measure that would help fund it. We checked in with two people on opposite sides of the issue: Dave Karpinski, the president of the Lake Erie Energy Development Corp., the nonprofit coalition behind Icebreaker, and John Lipaj, a board member for the Lake Erie Foundation, a nonprofit founded in 2016 to protect the lake. 

Why (or why not) Lake Erie?

 

John Lipaj:  Lake Erie is Ohio’s most precious natural resource. It has taken decades to recover from the damage done to Lake Erie by putting corporate profits ahead of the environment. Icebreaker’s $173 million cost is excessive for generating only 20 megawatts of electricity. That is $137 million more than the cost to generate the same amount of electricity with onshore wind turbines.

 

Dave Karpinski:  Ohio can seize a leadership position in the rapidly growing, multibillion-dollar U.S. offshore wind industry. Lake Erie is an ideal location with ample available interconnect capacity, abundant winds and a large demand for electricity. Reviewed by 14 state and federal agencies, Icebreaker offers a responsible path to a promising source of clean energy and an economic win.

 

https://clevelandmagazine.com/in-the-cle/news/articles/why-wind-turbines-in-lake-erie-are-so-controversial

 

Seems pretty telling that the main argument for opposition offered by the "nonprofit founded in 2016 to protect the lake" has nothing to do with protecting the lake. 

Block Island wind farm study shows that fish habitat improved by turbine foundations.

https://electrek.co/2022/04/18/the-first-us-offshore-wind-farm-has-had-no-negative-effect-on-fish-finds-groundbreaking-study/#more-234291

I would say this is fairly significant. 

 

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2022/08/in-6-1-decision-ohio-supreme-court-approves-icebreaker-wind-project-in-lake-erie.html

Another article on it. Fingers crossed that it happens

 

Anyone know status on this project?

35 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

Anyone know status on this project?

 

It doesn't seem like there's been much reporting since the last post in this thread.  This article from cleveland.com later in August gave a little more information.  It sounds like the team has be put back together, as people sort of started abandoning the project after the previous ruling that the turbines couldn't run at night.  And even once the planning team is back together, they still need to find a developer.

 

The Inflation Reduction Act passing should give some certainty to developers that they should be able to get at least a 30% tax credit and potentially more, which was definitely not a guarantee when this project was conceived.

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....)

49 minutes ago, Foraker said:

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’m pretty sure that the offshore location has the best (steadiest) winds and therefore be the most cost effective.

I grew up in WNY and go home often, there are a decent amount of "no turbines on the lake" signs and with that I wouldn't trust the Jamestown Post Journal or Dunkirk Observer for any type of deep cut analysis. They share the same editorial board and are very predicable in their takes, not to mention they're owned by Ogden Newspapers who put out nationwide editorials on occasion (like you see with Sinclair Broadcasting).  A bunch of turbines recently came online up on the ridges up and around where I grew up and people who aren't making money from them aren't happy about them. Folks are also still salty about a coal power plant being shut down that would provide a ton of PILOT funding for the area. 

 

All that said, I think the offshore team could do a much better job demonstrating that the turbines wouldn't be visible to most if not all people via viewshed analysis. I've done an analysis like this in college and it was kind of shocking how little of an impact on sightlines turbines have when you take into account buildings and obstructions that already exist.