Jump to content
Guest zaceman

Cleveland: Wind Turbine Construction News

Recommended Posts

 

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

NOW can we secede?? 

 

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, freefourur said:

 

 

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

 

This......

 

 

  • Like 3

"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Frmr CLEder
Spp
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Poison 1
  • Dislike 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by GISguy
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 5
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Frmr CLEder
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2

"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Frmr CLEder said:

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

YES...

Edited by Larry1962
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

image.png.c4f2f660b4af39c5aee9541268fbc5e2.png
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 by tastybunns
  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ 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 by Frmr CLEder
  • Like 11
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Frmr CLEder
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...