On 5/21/2020 at 9:19 PM, KJP said:

NOW can we secede?? 

 

Should we join canada, connecticut, or become our own state?

39 minutes ago, freefourur said:

 

 

Should we join canada, connecticut, or become our own state?

 

This......

 

 

On 5/24/2020 at 10:37 AM, ASP1984 said:

 

State corruption is exactly why I moved out of Ohio. I work in renewables (actually for LEEDCo back in 2010) and every time I read something like this it effectively comes across as "you aren't wanted here." Good, at least now there's no question. 

 

Save Greater Cleveland and a handful of cities, Ohio unfortunately deserves its rightful place at the bottom rung of US states. What an absolute mess.

 

 

Once again, Columbus politics demonstrates how disconnected NEO is from the rest of the state. Every initiative that could potentially benefit NEO is given the thumbs down in Columbus; mass transportation, social services, business development, alternative energy, etc.

 

Once again, decisions in Columbus always hold the NEO region back. This has been a century plus old problem for Cleveland and has contributed to its challenges. They're never part of the solution. They're always part of the problem.

 

NEO should secede from the state of Ohio; CT, PA, NY, Canada, anywhere east or north would be beneficial.

 

Hartford, Harrisburg, Albany or Ontario would do a better job of protecting NEO's interests.

 

The interests are simply too disparate.

Edited May 25, 20205 yr by Frmr CLEder
Spp

I originally thought this project was cool but the more I’ve thought about it over the years the less I like it. Lake Erie is an incredible asset. I’m afraid that this will litter the views from downtown. There is something beautiful about the natural view of the water and sky and would hate for man made structures to impact that. The birds are a real concern but I would be interested to see more studies.  Additionally how much of a benefit is it to have these in the lake rather than on land? I’d rather just leave the lake natural. 

15 minutes ago, JSC216 said:

I originally thought this project was cool but the more I’ve thought about it over the years the less I like it. Lake Erie is an incredible asset. I’m afraid that this will litter the views from downtown. There is something beautiful about the natural view of the water and sky and would hate for man made structures to impact that. The birds are a real concern but I would be interested to see more studies.  Additionally how much of a benefit is it to have these in the lake rather than on land? I’d rather just leave the lake natural. 

 

Part of my GIS work in undergrad was doing a viewshed analysis of wind turbines off of Erie. It's kind of shocking how quickly these wouldn't be visible from land. A tree and or multi story house is more likely to block even an attempt to see the turbines and lake. If you are on the lake there'd be little to no chance you'd see them either. It was a fun and informative project...

Edited May 25, 20205 yr by GISguy

17 minutes ago, JSC216 said:

I originally thought this project was cool but the more I’ve thought about it over the years the less I like it. Lake Erie is an incredible asset. I’m afraid that this will litter the views from downtown. There is something beautiful about the natural view of the water and sky and would hate for man made structures to impact that. The birds are a real concern but I would be interested to see more studies.  Additionally how much of a benefit is it to have these in the lake rather than on land? I’d rather just leave the lake natural. 

FWIW the Sierra Club supported the project. Likely because the alternative (coal) has resulted in high mercury levels which are catastrophic. 

12 hours ago, JSC216 said:

I originally thought this project was cool but the more I’ve thought about it over the years the less I like it. Lake Erie is an incredible asset. I’m afraid that this will litter the views from downtown. There is something beautiful about the natural view of the water and sky and would hate for man made structures to impact that. The birds are a real concern but I would be interested to see more studies.  Additionally how much of a benefit is it to have these in the lake rather than on land? I’d rather just leave the lake natural. 

 

Over time they just become a part of the landscape.  Even iconic in some cases.   I imagine there were folks back in 1916 decrying the water crib intake, despite it's obvious environmental benefits of clean water.  

 

Buffalo has a small farm of these turbines on it's lakeshore a few miles south of downtown.  They have become a part of the skyline as it is, visible for miles around.  

arent they ways to mitigate bird strikes. like building these away from known flight paths and making a noise or something to shoo birds away? i dk, but i would hope there is much more known about how to do that by now, no?

 

13 hours ago, JSC216 said:

I originally thought this project was cool but the more I’ve thought about it over the years the less I like it. Lake Erie is an incredible asset. I’m afraid that this will litter the views from downtown. There is something beautiful about the natural view of the water and sky and would hate for man made structures to impact that. The birds are a real concern but I would be interested to see more studies.  Additionally how much of a benefit is it to have these in the lake rather than on land? I’d rather just leave the lake natural. 

 

here is a study — check this out:

 

A 2009 study using US and European data on bird deaths estimated the number of birds killed per unit of power generated by wind, fossil fuel and nuclear power systems.

 

It concluded, "Wind farms and nuclear power stations are responsible each for between 0.3 and 0.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while fossil-fuelled power stations are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh."

 

That's nearly 15 times more. From this, the author estimated that wind farms killed approximately seven thousand birds in the United States in 2006 but nuclear plants killed about 327,000 and fossil-fuelled power plants 14.5 million.

 

In other words, for every one bird killed by a wind turbine, nuclear and fossil fuel powered plants killed 2,118 birds.

Shhhh....it was never a good faith argument about birds.

Oh god the birds!

 

Do you really think some obscure board in Columbus cares what happens up on Lake Erie?

 

Have any of the board members even been to Lake Erie?

 

If it involved fracking or a newly discovered coal reserve, they'd be all over it.

Edited May 26, 20205 yr by Frmr CLEder

 

Is this the same Benesch law firm as in the NuCLEus-Stark Benesch?

Edited May 28, 20205 yr by Frmr CLEder

9 hours ago, Frmr CLEder said:

I this the same Benesch law firm as in the NuCLEus-Stark Benesch?

YES...

Edited May 26, 20205 yr by Larry1962

Just wanted to throw this article here, actively shows the need for change in Ohio Politics and sudden slander of a project that was already greenlit.
https://www.cleveland.com/letters/2020/06/ohios-knife-in-the-back-approval-of-cleveland-wind-project-speaks-volumes-about-how-this-state-operates.html

 

Also here's a little snippet from a Crain's Business article which inaccurately calls this entire project a danger to our sacred fresh water source, which infuriates me. RANT TIME! ?

https://www.crainscleveland.com/letters-editor/letters-editor-well-do-better-diversity-isnt-enough

 

Now the Crain's Business article quotes that more extensive research needs to be done through an EIS rather than the less reliable Environmental Assessment that was done, but the only problem with that quote is that the survey was done and approved by the US Coast Guard, Department of Energy, and US Army Corps of Engineers. I don't think it gets any more official and more cost effective than running it through anymore surveys and studies than it's already been through. These people simply don't want this project to happen period. I mean holy crap, oil rigs in the gulf get approved faster than the hoops they want to try to get this project through. Wind is not a toxic energy source, your face doesn't melt off when you step outside right? I'm sure the toxic algal blooms happening year after year aren't that big of a problem so lets just kill this project in fear of our migratory birds that could die running from North to South.

Ok maybe I got a little too carried away. Birds can fly in at any direction, but the point is the margin of danger to them is super small. Super small as in the black line I put in the middle of the "Bird Death Zone"

But one thing's for darn sure I'm fairly certain the jobs being created in a new reliable energy market wont poison the water, and I'm also fairly certain that wind does not poison the air or the water. But hey IDK maybe I'm wrong so I'd have to ask my kindergarten teacher if algal infested freshwater and oil laden salt water in the gulf is safe to drink. Last time I checked the rich oil spewing out of the gulf isn't healthy for the ecosystem, so why spend more money cleaning up your mistakes when you can have something that virtually lasts forever and wont harm the environment et al. There is no need to shoot this project down, it is unnecessary to do so in such a way where it was already approved and shot down even after the subject went through 3 Federal Bureaus, and why turn down new markets which could be a natural success. Isn't that what we need especially right now because of Covid? I'm telling you, the brains of some people. People who shouldn't even hesitate to approve of something when you see new jobs, are the same people who are destroying much needed markets for the benefit of what? The world may never know.

 

Sorry for the lengthy rant, this project needed to happen.

Edited June 14, 20205 yr by tastybunns

^ Just another example, in a very long string, of State decisions that inhibit NEO from moving forward. The State of Ohio has been and continues to be NEO's greatest obstacle.

 

The State of Ohio is one of, if not the most non-progressive states in the North-Central Region. In some respects, even Indiana is more forward thinking; at least they landed Salesforce and a brand new IND. Ohio is so tied to relic industries and antiquated rural interests instead of investing in the future and growth opportunities. It's so pathetic.

Edited June 14, 20205 yr by Frmr CLEder

51 minutes ago, Frmr CLEder said:

^ Just another example, in a very long string, of State decisions that inhibit NEO from moving forward. The State of Ohio has been and continues to be NEO's greatest obstacle.

 

The State of Ohio is one of, if not the most non-progressive states in the North-Central Region. In some respects, even Indiana is more forward thinking; at least they landed Salesforce and a brand new IND. Ohio is so tied to relic industries and antiquated rural interests instead of investing in the future and growth opportunities. It's so pathetic.

amen brother....  when I moved back to ohio from the east coast, ohio seemed to be technologically challenged...

Wind Turbine Appeal. https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/local/cleveland/lake-erie-wind-turbine-project-appeals-project-killing-ruling/95-43209266-330e-4bc4-8f05-2aa47c84d8f4

Is Eaton Corporation supporting this project?

 

https://trib.al/kC4zpeh

41 minutes ago, Frmr CLEder said:

Is Eaton Corporation supporting this project?

 

https://trib.al/kC4zpeh

That’s a confusing question. The title of the article is “Eaton pledges to reduce carbon emissions by at least 50 percent by 2030”. Eaton is the one making this announcement. So the short answer is yes. 

8 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

That’s a confusing question. The title of the article is “Eaton pledges to reduce carbon emissions by at least 50 percent by 2030”. Eaton is the one making this announcement. So the short answer is yes. 

It was intended to be rhetorical.

 

The real question is, are any of the energy corporations pressuring Columbus to approve this project?

1 hour ago, Frmr CLEder said:

It was intended to be rhetorical.

 

The real question is, are any of the energy corporations pressuring Columbus to approve this project?

Ah, my bad - you were asking if they were actively supporting the wind turbine on Lake Erie project. I didn’t realize which thread this post was in. Good call - we need pressure from Ohio based companies, and Ohio-based companies that pretend to be headquartered in Ireland for tax purposes, e.g. Eaton. 

I'm just so disgusted with this random board's decision to squelch this project after years and years of time and money invested to bring it through so many regulatory hurdles.

Edited July 3, 20204 yr by Frmr CLEder

In other news related to wind turbines on Lake Erie:  How about that anti-wind HB6; and multibillion dollar First Energy; and Larry Householder in prison?

 

With anti-green energy criminals (allegedly, lol) in charge of Ohio, is it any wonder renewables account for only 2.7% of electric power in the state?  In other states it hovers around 15%.

 

Does anyone believe that a repeal of HB6, perhaps now a real possibility, will help grow legs again under LEEDco and other sustainable/renewable project in Ohio?

 

 

Edited July 22, 20204 yr by ExPatClevGuy

This scandal is truly amazing....   so will the house and the governor change their stance because of an indictment..  the possibility of jobs being lost in old nuclear plants and coal is not a good argument...

6 hours ago, ExPatClevGuy said:

In other news related to wind turbines on Lake Erie:  How about that anti-wind HB6; and multibillion dollar First Energy; and Larry Householder in prison?

 

With anti-green energy criminals (allegedly, lol) in charge of Ohio, is it any wonder renewables account for only 2.7% of electric power in the state?  In other states it hovers around 15%.

 

Does anyone believe that a repeal of HB6, perhaps now a real possibility, will help grow legs again under LEEDco and other sustainable/renewable project in Ohio?

 

 

 

Watching the twitterverse today it seems like repeal could be coming down the pipeline. From when the new bill passed here's Householder's opinion on renewables (ope!!! scumbag)

Quote

But House Speaker Larry Householder (R-Glenford) says lawmakers didn’t see the benefits they thought they would.

“Over the last 11 years, ratepayers in the state of Ohio have paid for a failed plan,” Householder says.

 

Also "enjoyed" the anti-LEEDco OpEd a few weeks ago in Crains: https://www.crainscleveland.com/opinion/personal-view-criticism-recent-lake-erie-wind-farm-decision-misguided

 

I doubt this scandal will change the statehouse in any meaningful way so I'm still pessimistic to LEEDco but want it to happen. Who knows maybe FE got it's claws into the energy siting board that screwed this up in the first place? At this point I wouldn't be surprised.

These policies are a prime example of what makes Ohio a regressive vs progressive state.

 

The failing economy, cronyism, corruption, continued support of fossil industries and lack of investment in clean future technologies is what sets it apart from so many of its counterparts. 

 

California, Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts and a host of other much more progressive states would have jumped on the opportunity; their economies reflect their progressive business development policies and strategies. California, for example, has been using wind turbine technology in its deserts and mountains since the 70's. You can't miss them driving on I-10 from LA to Palm Springs or I-5 over the Santa Monica Mountains.

 

This MAGA mentality is based upon ancient, conventional technologies that have limited futures and highlight what is wrong with the state's government.

Edited July 22, 20204 yr by Frmr CLEder

Quote

Republican state Reps. Mark Romanchuk of Richland County and Laura Lanese of suburban Columbus are currently soliciting other co-sponsors for a repeal bill, Lanese confirmed via text message Wednesday morning.

Separately, Democratic state Reps. Mike Skindell of Lakewood and Michael O’Brien of Warren announced in a release Wednesday they intend to file their own repeal bill.

All four of those lawmakers voted against HB 6 when it passed the House in July of 2019.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/open/2020/07/house-bill-6-repeal-bills-are-being-drafted-by-ohio-lawmakers-from-both-parties.html

 

maybe the wind will change direction....

Householder to Jimmy Dimora & Frank Russo,  - "Hold my beer!"

So this must be the scandal that @KJP referred to in another thread and I didn’t know what the scandal was.  I’ll do some reading up. 

Quote

The bill was a complicated amalgamation of subsidies for nuclear power, solar power and two coal plants. Incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency were eliminated to offset costs. Any repeal could be equally complex.

 

https://www.dispatch.com/news/20200722/gov-mike-dewine-wonrsquot-support-hb6-repeal-efforts-despite-bribery-case

 

very disappointed in dewine....   and why would the state even consider subsidizing co al which is a dying industry and harms the environment....   ??

4 hours ago, lockdog said:

 and why would the state even consider subsidizing co al which is a dying industry and harms the environment....   ??

 

If you have to ask....follow the money

1 hour ago, Cleburger said:

 

If you have to ask....follow the money

 

Agree. And this isn't the result of political corruption, it's the result of an electorate that just keeps on voting for the same corrupt people over and over again until they are literally imprisoned. 

I was not looking at the dewine as just another corrupt politician.....    but WTF....   He is tying himself up in knots....   he supports subsidizing nuclear power because it's a non-carbon pollutant but you get rid of green energy mandates....

 

Quote

DeWine said Thursday that restoring the green-energy standards could be on the table as part of the repeal and replacement.

https://www.cleveland.com/open/2020/07/gov-mike-dewine-calls-for-repeal-of-house-bill-6.html

 

The non-renewable energy corporations have deep pockets and will do anything they can to limit competition; politicians, big legal firms, lobbyists all fit the bill.

 

Never seen such a ba$$ 'ackward decision in state government!

 

This kind of consistently poor decision making and regressive policymaking is what makes current citizens and potential new citizens bail on the state.

Edited August 21, 20204 yr by Frmr CLEder

 

"A new campaign aims to oust Ohio’s top utilities regulator. Who is Sam Randazzo and how is he tied to FirstEnergy?"

 

https://www.cleveland.com/open/2020/08/a-new-campaign-aims-to-oust-ohios-top-utilities-regulator-who-is-sam-randazzo-and-how-is-he-tied-to-firstenergy.html

Edited August 21, 20204 yr by lockdog

9 hours ago, lockdog said:

 

"A new campaign aims to oust Ohio’s top utilities regulator. Who is Sam Randazzo and how is he tied to FirstEnergy?"

 

https://www.cleveland.com/open/2020/08/a-new-campaign-aims-to-oust-ohios-top-utilities-regulator-who-is-sam-randazzo-and-how-is-he-tied-to-firstenergy.html

Always follow the money!

 

"Bird deaths down 70 percent after painting wind turbine blades"

 

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/08/black-paint-on-wind-turbines-helps-prevent-bird-massacres/

 

?

1 hour ago, lockdog said:

 

"Bird deaths down 70 percent after painting wind turbine blades"

 

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/08/black-paint-on-wind-turbines-helps-prevent-bird-massacres/

 

?

Black? Well, I didn’t see that coming. 

a simple solution for the birds? thats encouraging. now if only clearing out trumpie coal corruption politicians had an easy answer.

I don’t see this as a valid reason any ways to halt wind turbines on Lake Erie.  What bird is going to be flying that low that far out from land?  Sure it might kill a few distracted sea gulls a year.  It might kill a cormorant or 2.  The majority of birds that are migrating are going to be flying well above the turbines.  

   

14 minutes ago, audidave said:

I don’t see this as a valid reason any ways to halt wind turbines on Lake Erie.  What bird is going to be flying that low that far out from land?  Sure it might kill a few distracted sea gulls a year.  It might kill a cormorant or 2.  The majority of birds that are migrating are going to be flying well above the turbines.  

   

 

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. 

5 minutes 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. 

 

While I'm sympathetic to migratory birds, I call BS!   

 

There are more "progressive" states and countries that we share borders with putting up these renewable energy windmills.   I flew to Buffalo a couple weeks ago and witnessed dozens of windmills on the southern shore of Ontario. There is a group of windmills to the south of downtown Buffalo on the shore for years.   How is it that libtard Canada and NYS are getting these done, but Ohio is not?   I would put my money on utility lobbies, and not bird migration! 

Hasn't essentially every study of the matter shown that the alternative, more fossil fuels, ends up killing far more in less visible ways?

The "birds die because of them" seems to be completely made up by interests against renewable energy.

 

Looking up some quick numbers, it appears the estimate is that 7,000 birds are killed by wind turbines a year in the US. Out of an estimated 20 billion birds. .000035%. Compared to an estimated 2.4 billion killed by housecats.

 

It's not that it's not important, but it feels like the wrong thing to focus on given that the net result is less birds dying than the alternative.

Edited August 27, 20204 yr by jmicha

Just to chime in here, the Audobon Society is very pro-wind turbine as the ecological damage from other forms of electrical generation cause more harm to birds than the localized deaths via wind turbines.  That said they are also an advocate for improving the safety of wind turbines as much as possible.  This conversation is usually hyper-focused on the direct bird deaths caused by a wind turbine but not really about the broader picture, which is that the harm caused by pollution, environmental destruction and global warming of traditional power generation is much more deadly. https://www.audubon.org/conservation/audubons-position-wind-power

5 minutes ago, jmicha said:

Hasn't essentially every study of the matter shown that the alternative, more fossil fuels, ends up killing far more in less visible ways?

The "birds die because of them" seems to be completely made up by interests against renewable energy.

 

Looking up some quick numbers, it appears the estimate is that 7,000 birds are killed by wind turbines a year in the US. Out of an estimated 20 billion birds. .000035%. Compared to an estimated 2.4 billion killed by housecats.

 

This conversation has always been somewhat ridiculous to me.

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...

43 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

 

While I'm sympathetic to migratory birds, I call BS!   

 

There are more "progressive" states and countries that we share borders with putting up these renewable energy windmills.   I flew to Buffalo a couple weeks ago and witnessed dozens of windmills on the southern shore of Ontario. There is a group of windmills to the south of downtown Buffalo on the shore for years.   How is it that libtard Canada and NYS are getting these done, but Ohio is not?   I would put my money on utility lobbies, and not bird migration! 

https://abcbirds.org/program/wind-energy-and-birds/

7 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

https://abcbirds.org/program/wind-energy-and-birds/

 

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.