# Wind Turbines on Erie



## K gonefishin (May 4, 2004)

Could be happening real soon of Cleveland, it will spread like wildfire as well. I'm very surprised this hasn't been a topic of discussion around here. It's been a huge topic on a NY Ontario board. This is bad news.

http://www.cleveland.com/business/i...be_built_in_lake_erie_by_2012_group_says.html 

Here is the discussion on LOU about them. 

http://www.lakeontariounited.com/fishing/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14436


----------



## Toxic (May 13, 2006)

First thing I don't like is "turbines may be made by foreign manufacturers". Second is, if 1 turbine powers only 800 homes and they want to build 8 total. That's only around 6400 homes at a cost of 100 million dollars? Where's the savings? Then we will not be allowed to fish around the area because it will be a restricted area? Doesn't sound like anything good will come from this.


----------



## Hardtop (Nov 24, 2004)

Although turbines are expensive at the onset, maintenance costs are low, and you need to start seeing the bigger picture. The nasty state of our economy has a direct link to our addiction to muslim oil....the sooner we can get thru "rehab' and give them the single finger salute, the better things will be for our grandkids. You all need to stop listening to conservative talk hosts who are supported by the American Petroleum Association....


----------



## Toxic (May 13, 2006)

Hardtop said:


> Although turbines are expensive at the onset, maintenance costs are low, and you need to start seeing the bigger picture. The nasty state of our economy has a direct link to our addiction to muslim oil....the sooner we can get thru "rehab' and give them the single finger salute, the better things will be for our grandkids. You all need to stop listening to conservative talk hosts who are supported by the American Petroleum Association....


Please tell me how spending 100 million dollars of our tax paying dollars to produce electricity for 6400 homes in a city with a population of close to 500,000 is going to help us out?


----------



## Toxic (May 13, 2006)

Hardtop said:


> You all need to stop listening to conservative talk hosts who are supported by the American Petroleum Association....


And you can prove this how?


----------



## sandwedge22_03 (Apr 25, 2008)

actually it would power 16,000 homes (800 per megawatt * 20 megawatts) ... over 20 years the cost would be a little over $300 per year per home ... My electric bill is more than that in 2 months ... even with maintenance costs, it's cheap & will only get cheaper as the technology advances.


----------



## Hardtop (Nov 24, 2004)

We spent well over $100 M each day we were fighting Georges "war" in Iraq.....perhaps current decision makers have the distant vision to get us out of this rut.....I'd much rather see my tax dollars going towards a solution rather that perpetuating a problem...


----------



## Toxic (May 13, 2006)

sandwedge22_03 said:


> actually it would power 16,000 homes (800 per megawatt * 20 megawatts) ... over 20 years the cost would be a little over $300 per year per home ... My electric bill is more than that in 2 months ... even with maintenance costs, it's cheap & will only get cheaper as the technology advances.


Your right, I thought I read it would only supply enough for 6400 homes. I still say it's a lot of money though. The power company is not going to lower your rates, and pass the savings on to you. And your forgetting to add one thing, you'll stiull pay for the construction of the windmills, plus your regular rates.


----------



## Toxic (May 13, 2006)

Hardtop said:


> We spent well over $100 M each day we were fighting Georges "war" in Iraq.....perhaps current decision makers have the distant vision to get us out of this rut.....I'd much rather see my tax dollars going towards a solution rather that perpetuating a problem...


I suggest we stay on the topic before this goes all "hope and changy" and it gets shut down.


----------



## duckman (Sep 18, 2004)

We don't use oil to generate electricity (Nat Gas, Coal, Nuke, Flowing Water) and there is little demand (and limited supply) for the alternative/replacements of things that do use oil based products... 

so changing how we generate electricity is a cart before the horse solution

So this argument does not hold water

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardtop 
Although turbines are expensive at the onset, maintenance costs are low, and you need to start seeing the bigger picture. The nasty state of our economy has a direct link to our addiction to muslim oil....the sooner we can get thru "rehab' and give them the single finger salute, the better things will be for our grandkids. You all need to stop listening to conservative talk hosts who are supported by the American Petroleum Association....


----------



## Lewzer (Apr 5, 2004)

I read that too. It's about time. Cover the southern shoreline of Lake Erie. You have to start somewhere.
Plus think of all the structure for fishing! This is great news.


----------



## Angler ss (May 15, 2008)

I would rather fish next to wind turbines than fish next to a nuclear power plant turbines malfuction not a big deal nuclear plant malfuction and you won"t have to worry about fishing because they will all be dead.
Angler ss


----------



## Iowa Dave (Sep 27, 2009)

Angler ss said:


> I would rather fish next to wind turbines than fish next to a nuclear power plant turbines malfuction not a big deal nuclear plant malfuction and you won"t have to worry about fishing because they will all be dead.
> Angler ss


Every living thing within 250 mile radius of an exploding Nuclear power plant will be dead. Not just the fish.


----------



## Hook N Book (Apr 7, 2004)

Indeed, let's stay on topic here and not deviate into politics that have nothing directly to do with this subject.

And for the record...the majority of U.S. imported oil does not come from mid-east counties.


----------



## bad luck (Apr 9, 2009)

Hardtop said:


> Although turbines are expensive at the onset, maintenance costs are low, and you need to start seeing the bigger picture. The nasty state of our economy has a direct link to our addiction to muslim oil....the sooner we can get thru "rehab' and give them the single finger salute, the better things will be for our grandkids. You all need to stop listening to conservative talk hosts who are supported by the American Petroleum Association....


Not taking this political, as other have chosen to do so, ...

According to the US dept of Energy website....

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/...ons/company_level_imports/current/import.html

our friends in Canada are the number 1 importer of oil to the US, followed by Mexico, .....of the top 10 countries that import oil to the US, ONLY 2 are "muslim" countries, of which neither is even in the top 3. 


Hate it when facts get in the way of a good story.



Wind generated electricity does not compete with oil anyways....it competes with Nat Gas, AMERICAN mined coal (mined by Americans, turned to energy by American employees), and nuclear power.


The rates charged for wind energy are just like those charged for other types, they can "change with the wind", so we can't predict on what prices will be CHARGED 20 yrs from now for wind energy, gas, , just as we don't know what we will be charged for minnows and nightcrawlers and the infamous BANJO MINNOW 20 yrs from now etc.....we can only speculate.


----------



## Lewzer (Apr 5, 2004)

> our friends in Canada are the number 1 importer of oil to the US, followed by Mexico, .....of the top 10 countries that import oil to the US, ONLY 2 are "muslim" countries, of which neither is even in the top 3.
> 
> 
> Hate it when facts get in the way of a good story.


Doesn't matter in the least. Oil is a fungible commodity. Mideast starts an embargo, everyone in the world who uses oil will pay the price regardless of where they import it from.

That NY board has a good discussion going.


----------



## Hook N Book (Apr 7, 2004)

Iowa Dave said:


> Every living thing within 250 mile radius of an exploding Nuclear power plant will be dead. Not just the fish.


I believe it has more to do with wind direction and the earth's rotation rather then some random distance. 
Just look at Chernybol, the contamination drifted northwest and affected some eastern european area but not many to the southeast. It would have to be an explosion on the order of a nuclear bomb to have that kind of widespread affect.


----------



## Toxic (May 13, 2006)

Lewzer said:


> I read that too. It's about time. Cover the southern shoreline of Lake Erie. You have to start somewhere.
> Plus think of all the structure for fishing! This is great news.


On the Ontario site, it said the areas around the windmills are going to be restricted. "If" that is true, you won't be able to fish around them. So you would loose the areas.


----------



## Toxic (May 13, 2006)

Hook N Book said:


> I believe it has more to do with wind direction and the earth's rotation rather then some random distance.
> Just look at Chernybol, the contamination drifted northwest and affected some eastern european area but not many to the southeast. It would have to be an explosion on the order of a nuclear bomb to have that kind of widespread affect.


Hey, 2012 we'll all be dead anyway!


----------



## Lewzer (Apr 5, 2004)

> On the Ontario site, it said the areas around the windmills are going to be restricted. "If" that is true, you won't be able to fish around them. So you would loose the areas.


That's pure speculation on their part.

In December 2001 me and a friend were fishing the AEP Cardinal coal fired power plant on the Pike Island pool.
A couple of workers and then the plant manager and a security guard and then a police officer came and told us we were not allowed to fish their warm water discharge and we have to leave for "security reasons".
Told them no way this is a federal navigable waterway and we are allowed to be here. I don't care what the board of directors of AEP say, They don't supersede federal law.

The cop threatened us by saying the Coast Guard was called and they are on their way. 
They never were called and they never were on their way.

Well after I got home I emailed the Coast Guard. They say the only off limits area was the Beavercreek Nuclear power plant. 
No corporation have the right to tell us where we can and cannot fish in federal waters.
It will be the same for the windmills.


----------



## Captain Kevin (Jun 24, 2006)

Well those foreign oil cry babies, aren't riding in a horse and buggy yet, they still run their central air when it's 80 out, and they still run their boat and troll all day, consuming that "foreign oil". Until you guys who preach the foreign oil crap lead by example, be quiet. NUFF SAID!


----------



## ShutUpNFish (Apr 17, 2007)

If they stimulate the economy, create new jobs and benefit the quality of life in the area....Then its pretty much a no brainer...I'd be all for it. We sometimes need to set our priorities straight and depending on all of the mentioned circumstances, fishing is nowhere near as important. Its a big lake, there would still be lots of places to catch fish.


----------



## goolies (Jun 28, 2007)

Here is another interesting article on the topic.

http://www.ohio.com/news/81152542.html


----------



## Toxic (May 13, 2006)

Lewzer, the Ontario site said it was restricted not so much for security reasons but more for a safety reasons. The power lines would be running under water, so no one could anchor up. And I assuming this one, it may be because of the turbines????


----------



## Lewzer (Apr 5, 2004)

Yopu have a point there Toxic, but the feds would be the ones who decide that. 
The Ohio River has many powerlines and pipelines crossing the river on the bottom. They are marked on navigation maps but there is no restricted fishing areas because of them.


----------



## Fish Scalper (Oct 31, 2009)

The population keeps growing so we'll continue to need all the energy we can get. More jobs and clean energy can't be a bad thing. The oil rigs in the gulf are a mecca for fishing. Even if we can't get near the turbines, certainly they will attract fish to the area within trolling distance so I don't see a down side.


----------



## duckman (Sep 18, 2004)

Hook N Book said:


> I believe it has more to do with wind direction and the earth's rotation rather then some random distance.
> Just look at Chernybol, the contamination drifted northwest and affected some eastern european area but not many to the southeast. It would have to be an explosion on the order of a nuclear bomb to have that kind of widespread affect.


You are a knowledgeable cookie

Canada and Mexico I think still provides the majority of our oil... 

but again the implementation of windmills isn't about oil it's about electricity and capacity... we have plenty of capacity to generate electricity from our underutilized on demand Nat Gas plants that only come on line when there is a spike in demand we should be using a bridge solution of nat gas that we have plenty of here in the US 

One would be better served by spending 100 million on improving the efficiency of products consuming electricity or creating new products that don't consume non-strategic energy sources such as oil and gas. 

I am opposed to implementing windmills without doing a smart grid implementation first... this would allow us to use the existing energy more efficiently without creating new impacts


----------



## Hetfieldinn (May 17, 2004)

Hardtop said:


> Although turbines are expensive at the onset, maintenance costs are low, and you need to start seeing the bigger picture. The nasty state of our economy has a direct link to our addiction to muslim oil...


Would you consider oil from Canada and Mexico Muslim oil, because that's where the US gets the majority of it's oil.

Only about 19% of the oil we import is 'Muslim oil', as you call it.


----------



## K gonefishin (May 4, 2004)

I personally don't think we need them, this isn't NY city with 12 zillion people that need more power, cuyahoga county's population is shrinking EVERY SINGLE year....this is nothing more than policitians filling there pockets with more shady deals...amonsgt other things of course but a main driving force behind this actually happening. These guys can't do anything right in the first place let alone get a project like this off the ground, look at the port authority...a joke, medical mart..a joke. Cleveland it turning into a joke (actually already is) but yeah I still love it and walleye fishing is bomb


----------



## FINSEEKER II (Aug 19, 2009)

All I know is that very few man-made structures outlast the turbulance of lake Erie. So go ahead and build the future underwater structure for my grandkids and such. Lake Erie claims all. Go down and take a good look at what was once a "T" shaped pier at Edgewater state park. All that is left after a few years of dealing with the lake is an "I".


----------



## firstflight111 (May 22, 2008)

Toxic said:


> First thing I don't like is "turbines may be made by foreign manufacturers". Second is, if 1 turbine powers only 800 homes and they want to build 8 total. That's only around 6400 homes at a cost of 100 million dollars? Where's the savings? Then we will not be allowed to fish around the area because it will be a restricted area? Doesn't sound like anything good will come from this.


learn to read ..A megawatt is equal to 1 million watts. One megawatt of power generated by conventional power plants is sufficient to power about 800 homes.. they are 20 megawatts 

that means 20 times 800 homes


----------



## Hook N Book (Apr 7, 2004)

Toxic said:


> Hey, 2012 we'll all be dead anyway!


I'm not planning on going anywhere, but I'll check back with you in the winter of 2013...!


----------



## Cool Hunter (Dec 8, 2004)

Some people just can't see the light!!! I'd say putting anything out there like this will cause restrictions that most will dislike. And I agree with K-Gone, its all just some dirty deals going down with the politicians. Not sure if I know of a good polotician anymore. 

As for oil, have you ever looked at the prices per barrel of oil back when it was around $1 and now that its $2.70? Not much of a difference. Whats sad is despite who the president or leaders are, we allow them to charge us like this. We'll all be too poor to fish if they keep it up. We have huge untapped oil fields in the US that we haven't touched and they blame it on foreign oil. And some of you believe it.


----------



## ShutUpNFish (Apr 17, 2007)

Come on guys....FISHING ISN'T EVERYTHING....Oh wait...what the Hell am I saying, am I losing it or what....Fishing IS EVRYTHING!!!!!! Geeeze O Man....OK OK OK...I'm alright now.

Kev....I'm sure you're right about someone's pockets getting lined or gaining votes/power/popularity somewhere along the line, but where does that NOT happen?....just take a look at the PAFBC and PAGC! Bottom line is that is if those things benefit the people by cutting their costs, create jobs, etc etc the idea deserves some consideration in this recessed economy today.


----------



## Hook N Book (Apr 7, 2004)

Cool Hunter said:


> As for oil, have you ever looked at the prices per barrel of oil back when it was around $1 and now that its $2.70? Not much of a difference. Whats sad is despite who the president or leaders are, we allow them to charge us like this. We'll all be too poor to fish if they keep it up. We have huge untapped oil fields in the US that we haven't touched and they blame it on foreign oil. And some of you believe it.


uuuhhhh, OPEC establishes the price of a barrel of crude oil, not the federal government or other politians for that matter. Not sure of the point you're making here. 
Here's a link of crude oil over the years: I'd say we're getting a bargin ($1 vs. $2.79 a gal.) when you factor in inflation...! 
http://www.ioga.com/Special/crudeoil_Hist.htm


----------



## K gonefishin (May 4, 2004)

South Shore isn't the only place this is going on, north shore and NY as well. They are trying to put them ALL OVER LAKE ERIE. Seriously spend some time reading up on this stuff, alot to digest but it's extreme cause for concern. 

http://lakeeriewindturbines.com/ 

http://www.windaction.org/news/7849 Notice what jokesters are named in this article, these guys couldn't build a house out of lego's legally. 

"The 10 turbines would stand some 300 feet above the water and crank out up to 20 megawatts of power. That&#8217;s enough to light up 6,000 homes" WOW a whole 6,000 homes. 

Think about how many they REALLY want to build on our great lake to actually do something. Pay your electric bill and shut up, ANY savings will never be seen at our level EVER.

In year 2000 in Cuyahoga county there were 571,000 households. Do the math on that one versus the cost of creating these things and how many would be needed. ??? think about it.


----------



## smiley (Dec 20, 2004)

Hardtop:
The Nasty state of our economy is due to a bunch of political prostitutes that borrow money into existance from a private bank( Federal Reserve) + interest. It has been going on sinced 1913 and the income tax is for nothing but paying the interest on that debt (since 1913). Get rid of both and this country will flurish. Keep it and it will be more of the same Wind turbines or not.


----------



## rickerd (Jul 16, 2008)

The lake isn't the best place for those babies anyway. I'm sure many of you have seen the winds die many hot days during the summer, during midday when everyone has the air conditioning running. Peak electrical use hours. We need the turbines in clear areas just offshore would be my thinking. They will pick up the wind coming and going from the lake.

Rickerd


----------



## Hook N Book (Apr 7, 2004)

K gonefishin said:


> http://www.windaction.org/news/7849 Notice what jokesters are named in this article, these guys couldn't build a house out of lego's legally.
> 
> "The 10 turbines would stand some 300 feet above the water and crank out up to 20 megawatts of power. Thats enough to light up 6,000 homes" WOW a whole 6,000 homes.


Kevin, I was starting to really question the numbers being thrown around by the various articles that have been posted about this project. This article in particular, is from Feb. of 2007. I'm more incline to believe the latter numbers of 16k homes rather then 6k in the older article.
I read a similar article yesterday and the numbers were more in line with 1-Mw serving 800 homes.
Another thing is, I don't think this will happen in the time frame being discussed. Especially, since they are looking for buy-in for equity over cash...!


----------



## hearttxp (Dec 21, 2004)

NO ! NO ! I do not want to see them out on Erie. How about we put them say on the beach at Cedar Point or Lakewoods Gold Coast Or even Downtown Ctown ! They are Bad ! They Are`Uguly And Noisy ! Lets think about the Fish and the birds for a change !! I know I can post what I want but we know who is responsible for these !


----------



## Hook N Book (Apr 7, 2004)

hearttxp said:


> NO ! NO ! I do not want to see them out on Erie. How about we put them say on the beach at Cedar Point or Lakewoods Gold Coast Or even Downtown Ctown ! They are Bad ! They Are`Uguly And Noisy ! Lets think about the Fish and the birds for a change !! I know I can post what I want but we know who is responsible for these !


I'll take a stab at reading between the lines here.  In my last post I pointed out the date of an article (Feb. 2007) when this was already being discussed and planned.
Point is, the time line doesn't fit...!


----------



## Cool Hunter (Dec 8, 2004)

Hook N Book said:


> uuuhhhh, OPEC establishes the price of a barrel of crude oil, not the federal government or other politians for that matter. Not sure of the point you're making here.
> Here's a link of crude oil over the years: I'd say we're getting a bargin ($1 vs. $2.79 a gal.) when you factor in inflation...!
> http://www.ioga.com/Special/crudeoil_Hist.htm


The point I'm making is, this is the US. Land of the free and home of the brave! Since when does the US have to listen to OPEC and their leaders who hate the US. If we had leaders that cared about this country and that includes you Hook N Book, they would use our own oil or make deals with bordering countries and exclude or break up OPEC. Instead we have fallen in line with the rest of the world. Better start getting used to all of the bad changes. Pretty soon, Ted Nugent won't be able to say "You can't do this in France" because we'll be just like them. Wake up and quit thinking we are a bunch of cattle falling in line to be watered and fed.


----------



## Hook N Book (Apr 7, 2004)

Have you even read any of the things that have been posted...??? Like the one poster said, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story...!


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

There are no more fossil fuels being made, and I think you all know this. I believe that those in charge previously (even before the enviro commies)have had the idea that the less of our oil we use now, the more we will have later. If the oil producing countries ever thought that we had no domestic production capabilities (our wells were dry), what do you think they would do with the price? I think it's in our best interest to keep some back, if nothing else but to use as leverage in pricing for the future.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

Why buy and build new wind turbines????

There are 1000's of them sitting idle in California just begging for someone to purchase and update them. 

All our tax dollar subsidies for wind power that were spent many years ago didn't pan out too well. I'm sure it will be better this time


----------



## Weekender#1 (Mar 25, 2006)

The question I ask is why put them out in Erie where they will be difficult to service. Answer is the state goverment can charge more for the space. In Indiana there are vast areas of the wind turbines, hundreds of them but they buy/lease the land and farmers farm the land under them, it really is amazing to see this area, where as once the turbines are in the waters of Erie, the goverment can tax them in other ways. Gov Strickland has a serious addiction to "more money syndrome" and it is really starting to peave me off. I love the turbine industry but lets keep it in private hands at least for now. The ones investing should be the power company not my tax dollars. It is a industry just like the ones you and I work in.


----------



## Liquid Assets (Jul 6, 2008)

Is it true that there is no way to store the energy that the turbines create?


----------



## boss302 (Jun 24, 2005)

Hardtop said:


> Although turbines are expensive at the onset, maintenance costs are low, and you need to start seeing the bigger picture. The nasty state of our economy has a direct link to our addiction to *muslim oil....*the sooner we can get thru "rehab' and give them the single finger salute, the better things will be for our grandkids. You all need to stop listening to conservative talk hosts who are supported by the American Petroleum Association....


Ok, Call me dense here............I just can't understand how oil, a substance, can have a religion. Is the oil from Canada and Mexico largely christian? My neighbors are wicken. Does this mean I am burning witches if I have a fire with their wood?

Re: the possible offshore wind farm I am on the fence. Sounds like some good points to both sides.....once you strip the crap, mis-information, politics, and other agendas.


----------



## reel (Dec 15, 2004)

I'm agin um. And they will knock out all the sea gulls, ducks, geese and eagles.
....


----------



## boatnut (Nov 22, 2006)

The problem with "alternative energy" as I see it is....it's just not economically viable. That being said, It does create a "conundrum" or a "catch 22 " situation in a lot of ways.

I'm sure we'd all like to see pollution reduced, greenhouse gases etc. It just seems to me though, that the only way the "alternative" energy sources can compete , are if they are somehow "subsidized". That kind of goes against my "free market" beliefs, BUT, at the same time, I do not think we can stand by and wait till "traditional" means of energy get so expensive, that we then decide to start playing around with "alternative " sources.

I guess what i'm trying to say is, I think we need some research done and have some good alternative sources waiting in the wings to bring on board once and if, traditional sources become too expensive. Obviously , this will require some testing etc. of new technology. 

I'm not sure how best to fund all the research...tax dollars or whatever, but I do feel that different approaches to energy supply do need to be explored. Personally, I feel that things like http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html are much more viable then wind or solar, but I could be wrong.

It appears that one of the major downsides of wind energy is the "NIMBY" attitude- "not in my back yard". No one wants these things in the area where they have to live.


----------



## Captain Kevin (Jun 24, 2006)

Boatnut, the only issue I have with taxpayers subsidizing the research is a "private" company will profit from my taxpayer funded research. If I pay for the research, I better get the benefit for free. Know what I mean?


----------



## will227 (May 31, 2007)

if you build it they will come


----------



## Captain Kevin (Jun 24, 2006)

will227 said:


> if you build it they will come


Tell that to the city of Cleveland! They built a football stadium and uh.........you know!!


----------



## will227 (May 31, 2007)

lol u got me with that one


----------



## Hook N Book (Apr 7, 2004)

Liquid Assets said:


> Is it true that there is no way to store the energy that the turbines create?


You raise a good point.
And it's Absolutely true. At this point in time this holds true for not only wind turbines specifically, but electricity generation in general. The point is to use the turbines or other means as the primary source of energy and the fossil fuels as a supplement. There's power plants in the grid system that only operate at 10%-20% of capcity until additional power is needed (peak power periods).


----------



## Ward603 (Sep 6, 2008)

I think that we all need to calm down and just think a little bit. Of course this is an expensive project. I'll be honest, it doesn't look like it would be worth it right now. It doesn't seem cost effective. But don't forget that it wasn't that long ago that PC's weren't cost effective. Times change. What everyone needs to start understanding is that this country is going to use alternative energy. It's going to happen. Its happening right now. We can either be leaders and be at the front of alternative energy, or we can do the usual northeast ohio thing and watch everyone else prosper from bold moves. Then we can follow along 15 years later so that we can be in the same rut that we're in now. I don't know if people get it, but there is enough natural energy on this earth to power itself. Just in tidal currents alone there is enough energy to power the entire globe. All we have to do is find a way to harness it. It's decades away but can't we start now? New York has turbines under water as we speak that turn with the direction of the tide by themselves to produce power all day long everyday. Why can't we just give the wind turbines a try? What would be so bad about trying something smart for once?


----------



## Hook N Book (Apr 7, 2004)

Boatnut, I agree with the no tax payer subsidy also. According to the article they are looking for a federal loan of 80% of the project cost. In addition they're looking at donation of equipment/services...!  

"We would prefer a developer who wants equity in the project and takes payment for services as equity instead of cash," Stuebi said later in a text message."
Good luck with that one. 

NIMBY...is the kicker. They are impressive to see, but after about 10 minutes you've seen it all and want it to go away.


----------



## Streamhawk (Apr 25, 2008)

Wind power is a huge waste of time. Each unit at optimal speed can only produce power for a couple thousand houses. You would have to place them from Conneaut clear across to toledo to even think about making a dent, in one town. Personally, I have seen these things up and close in PA, and boy do they generate a lot of noise pollution when operating. Well these were out in the middle of nowhere, but close to a population, people will notice. Not to mention, a great majority of these units are built in China and not the US, so we know how the crap in China is made, I'll leave it at that. This is just another great idea by govt to throw money in the wind and say "hey we are green and protecting the environment". I am for a better way, but unfortunatly the powers that be do not think things through and what the outcome will be down the road, they just look as far as their nose. I am just waiting for one of those big blades to come off and take out a small town, that will be the end of wind technology. JMTC


----------



## bad luck (Apr 9, 2009)

Ward603 said:


> I think that we all need to calm down and just think a little bit. Of course this is an expensive project. I'll be honest, it doesn't look like it would be worth it right now. It doesn't seem cost effective. But don't forget that it wasn't that long ago that PC's weren't cost effective. Times change. What everyone needs to start understanding is that this country is going to use alternative energy. It's going to happen. Its happening right now. We can either be leaders and be at the front of alternative energy, or we can do the usual northeast ohio thing and watch everyone else prosper from bold moves. Then we can follow along 15 years later so that we can be in the same rut that we're in now. I don't know if people get it, but there is enough natural energy on this earth to power itself. Just in tidal currents alone there is enough energy to power the entire globe. All we have to do is find a way to harness it. It's decades away but can't we start now? New York has turbines under water as we speak that turn with the direction of the tide by themselves to produce power all day long everyday. Why can't we just give the wind turbines a try? What would be so bad about trying something smart for once?




WE (the US), already did...travel to california, theres miles and miles and miles of them out there right now.........which state is the most broke right now? which state has the most power outages.....

Wind power is not to be confused with the great inventions of all time.....the PC, the wheel, remote control, and Mitchell 300, and the foot controlled electric motor.........




Again, doesn't really matter what it COSTS to build, what matters is what the market will bear when selling it..........if the evil company Exxon (who employs thousands and thousands of American workers who love to hunt and fish) was trippiong all over themselves to creat wind turbines, I would then be worried that we're running out of oil...but that is not the case.


----------



## Toxic (May 13, 2006)

firstflight111 said:


> learn to read ..A megawatt is equal to 1 million watts. One megawatt of power generated by conventional power plants is sufficient to power about 800 homes.. they are 20 megawatts
> 
> that means 20 times 800 homes


You learn to read. I recanted myself many post before this one


----------



## Ward603 (Sep 6, 2008)

It doesn't matter if we're running out of oil or not. That shouldn't be the reason we move toward alternative energy. The reason should be that it is a more environmentally friendly means of producing energy. Which by the way, I don't know if you noticed, the environment houses our fishing resources.


----------



## Saildog (Aug 2, 2004)

There is good and bad to this whole thing:

A lot of those power outputs are fluffed up. If you had constant winds of 15 MPH then the turbine puts out so many watts. The reality is you never get quite what they claim. 

There are several reasons for putting them out in the lake as opposed to on shore. For the turbines to be efficient, they need the most constant winds possible. Too fast or too slow, even by amount almost unperceptible to us, can make a big difference in the power output over the life of the unit. Before they are built there is always a survey of the exact spot and the winds are measured precisely over several months (or more). Typically those best spots are over water. 

Noise generation is another reason. Fish don't vote or call the media, so it is easier politically to put them in the lake than in someone's back yard. Power losses from transmission are huge, so they need to be relatively close to the areas that use the power. So parking them in corn fields 50 miles away is not the most efficient choice either. 

I travel to Europe a lot for my job over the last 15 years and the Germans in particular have a lot of wind turbines. In the beginning the evironmental groups were the ones pushing for them. Now some are calling for production to stop because of the impacts they have on migrating birds. You can never make everyone happy. 

Turbines are never going to replace nuclear, coal, nat gas or other forms of energy production. They can't. They are at the mercy of the wind for their input/output and there is no storage from these. But that is not the point at all. If you can use turbines to generate "clean" power that totals even 2%, you have changed the game. How? Think about the stock markets during a "big" sell-off. It is a very, very small % of the stocks actually being sold but it can make a huge % in what the going rates are. Energy works the same way. Reduce demand even slightly and you can see the difference. 

Also note that these are government loans, not grants. They will have to be repaid. I don't really like it anyhow (if it makes financial sense, then private funding should be found), but it's still better than loaning our money to banks. 

As for fishing structure, don't get any dreams of bouncing jigs off the bases of those things. I would be amazed if they let boats that close to them. I've seen video of what happens when one of these things lets loose. It's not pretty. 

As for saving the environment, don't get too excited there either. It takes energy to produce and install something that big. Factories will be built; aluminum, copper, steel and concrete will need to be produced; parts transported in from Europe and other areas...all told those turbines will take many years to "save" the carbon emissions that went into making them. But at least they are still better than solar panels...the vast majority of which generate more carbon in their production than they ever save in their service lives. 

Personally, I think the benefits nominally outweight the costs if they are done in moderation. Part of that is because the perception of being green is usually bigger than the reality and if it helps make northern Ohio look more green and modern, it will help to attract companies (and jobs) to our area. But most of this is a feel-good photo op for a politician to be able to point at something and say "look what I did." If you want to make a real difference, start building more nuclear power plants. They are more cost effective, dependable and arguably greener.


----------



## duckman (Sep 18, 2004)

Generating *more *resources to burn through, environmentally friendly or not, is not going to solve the problem if we do not find more environmentally friendly means of consuming/conserving energy.

*Example:*
You can't store electricity efficiently and the means that we do use to store it today (batteries) have a huge impact the environment when they wear out. Their nasty waste will end up in our water and therefore I oppose windmills until we consider the down stream impacts such as this (literal and figuratively).


----------



## Streamhawk (Apr 25, 2008)

Putting something out there to say "hey we did something" with no benefit is crazy, but that seems to be the current state of affairs. This ranks right up there with geothermal systems which are extremely expensive, and the pay back is at minium 20 plus years. Good idea, but does not warrant that we do it.


----------



## creekcrawler (Oct 5, 2004)

It would confuse boaters.
Right now there's only one landmark to fish by - The Crib.
Having other structures to fish & boat around would be overload......


----------



## smallydreamin (Apr 21, 2008)

We could build another Avon Lake type coal burning power plant for less than half the price of equivalent wind turbines.

Coal and oil are two of the most cost efficient energy sources ever known to man. We have at least a couple centuries before we run out of these energy sources.

Clevelanders, above all others, should be the first skeptics of the global warming phobia. Let's throw good money after bad at a feel good attempt at reducing carbon emissions.

The wealthy coastal land owners of the Northeast United States don't even want wind turbines around.

Let's suggest the Canadiens install the wind turbines on their side, about where the commercial fishing boats work. We can offer to purchase the electricity at their cost. Then, we can sit back and hear the screaming from across the lake.


----------



## K gonefishin (May 4, 2004)

creekcrawler said:


> It would confuse boaters.
> Right now there's only one landmark to fish by - The Crib.
> Having other structures to fish & boat around would be overload......


I'm by the big white windmill looking thing!! Which one...the 8th one over from the crib! From which direction?..I can only hear the radio now


----------



## wanderin_eyes (Jan 14, 2009)

K gonefishin said:


> I'm by the big white windmill looking thing!! Which one...the 8th one over from the crib! From which direction?..I can only hear the radio now


They would have to paint everyone a diffrent colors to make that easier, our paint them to match RR colors. Im at Pink panties next to monkey puke


----------



## ErieAngler (Apr 15, 2006)

You guys need to understand that senate bill 221 was signed in Ohio (last year I believe). That requires all utilities in ohio to serve Ohio customers from a generation mix that is 25% renewable by 2025. That is regardless of cost. The 25% is broken down into alternative sources, wind and solar requirements. And of that % so much has to come from Ohio and only so much may come from a neighboring state where there is transmission to bring in that energy.

The simple fact is that renewable energy is EXPENSIVE to build and generate electricity per megawatt, kilowatt, what ever denominator you use. Not to mention it also causes transmission issues (congestion) which increases cost to the end user. The problem with renewables is you cannot predict when the energy will be generated and how much. And when it is generated you have to take it, which makes it hard and unrealistic to use for baseload energy. Its not like a gas or coal fired plant where you can easily ramp it up and down and control the output at the sametime.

The big fad seems to be "going green." What a lot of people who really push that concept don't realize is that it comes at a huge cost. If it was possible for utilities to generate clean, efficient, controlable energy at an affordable price they would all due it. They are so heavily regulated by state and federal bodies that there isn't much if anything they can do without getting permission first. Another reality is that as expensive as renewable energy is now, the only reason it is a cheap as it is currently is because the cost is heavily subsidized by the federal government through production tax credits in the first 10 years.

In my opinion, the wind turbines arent that big of a problem. Im used to seeing them between Whetley and Erieau, but a lot of people have the NIMBY sindrome. 

I didnt read much of this thread, but I hope that gives some unbiased useful information to anyone interested.


----------



## Alaskan (Jun 19, 2007)

Toxic said:


> On the Ontario site, it said the areas around the windmills are going to be restricted. "If" that is true, you won't be able to fish around them. So you would loose the areas.



Nice. Baitfish havens and current breaks we wouldn't have access too. Great idea. Basically reducing the fishable population. Bring on some gas rigs. Great structure,fishable, home grown, and unlike a lot of the turbines, built here.


----------



## Hoosier Daddy (Aug 19, 2005)

bad luck said:


> WE (the US), already did...travel to california, theres miles and miles and miles of them out there right now.........which state is the most broke right now? which state has the most power outages.....
> 
> Wind power is not to be confused with the great inventions of all time.....the PC, the wheel, remote control, and Mitchell 300, and the foot controlled electric motor.........
> 
> ...


I got news for you California's financial issues and power outages have very little to do with wind power. It has a lot more to do with spending more than they bring in for years and their power demand.

It isn't about running out of oil. It is about helping our country become more energy independant. What exactly does Exxon employing folks who love to hunt and fish have anything to do with it. I would imagine any energy company is bound to have a few folks who hunt and fish regardless of how they produce their power.

Why does Exxon not get into the alternative energy game? Well BP and few other have, but folks are correct when they say currently it is not economically comparable to traditional fossil fuels. Most new technologies are not on par with their predecessors initally because of the learning curve. What if the government never funded the space program or military R and D? We would not have some of the great things private industry make available to us today because no practical company is willing to outlay the HUGE $ necessary to make major break throughs that make new technology economically feasable.

Alternative energy is the future. It is going to happen. It is just a matter of how and when. Are wind turbines the answer? I don't know. I imagine they will be apart of the mix. 

For those that say no becaus they ruin your view. I say how about Davis Besse/Toledo Edison/Monroe Power Plant/Enrico Fermi ect... I would rather look as windmills than nuclear power plants and smoke stacks billowing.

For those that say no because of birds being killed. We have a couple of windmills in Bowling Green and you should see the giant pile of dead birds underneath these things. I am sure there are ways to place them/run them that will minimize impact on birds. Also how many animals are impacted by fossil fuels? Procuring them is usually a dirty business. Converting them to energy is also dirty. Just read about how many fish are killed in the turbines/warm water discharge at the Bayshore Power plant in Toledo.


For those that say this is a political boondogle. I cannot argue. I don't know enough about this specific plan. It is important that energy policy becomes more about producing the best energy plan for Amaerica not lining the pockets of politicians an their benefactors. I would propose R and D for alternatives along with some small scle projects that are currently viable. Investments in smart grid technolgy along with effeciency/conservation efforts. Very selective use of our own domestic fossil fuels. If we drill all of our own oil what is our back up plan. That oil is not going anywhere and it serves as a great strategic reserve. 


Just a few of my nickels on the subject


----------



## smallydreamin (Apr 21, 2008)

Alternative energy is the future, future being the key word.

Currently, there is no cost effective alternatives to oil and coal for our energy usage. Wind turbines may have a niche opportunity but there are no appreciable returns for their implementation. Limited financial capital along with extreme government and private debt doesn't allow for funds to be used on a risky project such as this.

Private investors do not seem to be running to their checkbooks to invest in windpower. That should tell us a lot about the cost effectiveness of wind turbine alternative energy.


----------



## seahawk (Aug 1, 2008)

The petroleum supply will be fully depleted anywhere from 2028 to 2070, with the highest probability range being between 2036 and 2050. I'll be alive to see it, more than likely. My kids will definitely be alive, as will my grandkids. 

So wherever it comes from, it will get more and more expensive as it runs out. Trying to freak fisherman out about trying something different is a good strategy. Go with that.


----------



## Whitefin (Sep 4, 2008)

Coal power plants are one of the major causes of mercury in our fish. Wind power could help make our fish a little bit cleaner. I'm sure we all could appreciate that.


----------



## n8arw (Apr 28, 2004)

Streamhawk said:


> Wind power is a huge waste of time. Each unit at optimal speed can only produce power for a couple thousand houses. You would have to place them from Conneaut clear across to toledo to even think about making a dent, in one town. JMTC


For those of you that fish out of Conneaut and haven't been up there yet this year, your going to have a surprise!

There's a new wind turbine at the base of the hill in front of the condos by the treatment plant. It was installed in Jan. and went on line in March.


----------



## RiverDoc (Mar 12, 2010)

Windmills are a marketing gimmick and will result in a quick buck for the manufacturers, but will not result in substantial increases of energy production.

Let's go back to the Oil Embargo of 1973. Following this event, the US Congress directed a panel of scientists to investigate alternative means of energy production. The results of this panel were published in 1974, which was called the Subpanel IX report. Possible alternative energy sources in the future would consist of (1) biomass conversion, (2) recycled heat and cold energy byproducts from industries, (3) solar power, (4) geothermal and (5) wind power, and (6) differential temperature currents within oceans. 

Most of these are neither energy efficient nor cost effective, with the exception of solar power. Nuclear power was absent from this list. Once you establish a nuclear power plant it is in place and provides continuous power and requires mostly maintenance. The same with solar power, though solar does not consistently produce power unless you're in the sunbelt. How are you going to continue to make a profit on a nuclear reactor once it's built? It uses very little fuel in time. How can you make a tax on sun? 

The coal plants today have scrubbers that remove all impurities and only very trace amounts escape into the atmosphere. It is a very good choice of energy and I do not know why folks target our power plants. The only reason that comes to mind, is that, like other products, complaints generate an enthusiasm that stimulates competition among alternative industries. Without complaints and badgering of legislators, these alternatives would not see the light of day.

Let's look at big oil. If we have untapped reserves throughout our continent, then, why can't we use these? Well, just like forested and agricultural lands that go unused, the investment potential goes up with unuse as long as the commodity is trading at a high price (for example, oil, timber, land). We cannot use any of our natural resources anymore. Those untapped oil reserves are worth a great deal and their value continues to increase as long as oil climbs. In the meantime, windmills are a novelty and will be pushed to the side in a few years. 

Save us from ourselves! Peanut allergies, childhood obesity, mercury in fish, too much caffeine, too much salt, the gypsy moth, africanized bees, asteroids, pcbs, global warming, acid rain, lead sinkers, and the list goes on. We have met the enemy and he is us. If most folks didn't read papers and listen to the news, they wouldn't have a care in the world. Not to say that problems don't exist. But in most cases we are being sold a bill of goods. 

In the meantime, nothing beats the sound of a singing drag!


----------

