Wind Power - Now is the Time

[Lynn Farris]

I listened to the Press Conferencce today and read about the proposal the Obama administration is making to Congress. One of the items that struck me was the tax issue for green energy (the details of which were not forthcoming in the press conference - but I believe is part of the economic stimulus package.)

One of the problems with building a plant for Municipal Wind mills is that the tax policies have been year by year. This year we will get a tax incentive but next year we won't. This inconsistency has left firms reluctant to invest. Now with the goal of building infrastructure, redoing the electrical grid (which is a huge undertaking - for the benefit of municipal windpower). and creating green jobs Now is the time to invest in Wind Power for Lakewood. If we want to do this as a joint effort with the other West Shore Suburbs, Rocky River and Bay Village (as some in council have suggested) so much the better. This is exactly the type of plan the Science Community now in the Energy Dept. would champion and fund. The sewer department alone uses a huge amount of energy and if I recall correctly - they need an update. Schools, library etc. could benefit and thus all of Lakewood would benefit by reducing the energy needed by this plan.

I know the Fitzgerald administration has people near it that have championed green energy and have been successful in the past in writing grants. I think this would be an exciting opportunity. The plant that Obama visited that makes part of the municipal wind mills is located in NE Ohio, so it would be a win, win situation by reducing the energy costs for the city and supporting companies creating jobs in NE Ohio.

[Tim Liston]

The atmospheric scientist whose work on CFC's eventually led to their ban has said that most of the green stuff is verging on a giant scam.

Clicky.

If we are to make a difference, we're gonna have to start with conservation. But nobody wants to be first....

[Lynn Farris]

Tim,

First of all, I know that you are an ardent conservationist and that you practicce what you preach and I admire you for it.

But I totally and completely disagree with you. Green Energy and Renewable types of energy are going to be the wave of the future. They are not a giant scam - this guy doesn't like the look of a wind farm. I have never read such a blatant blanket dismissal of such a broad topic.

I personally think wind farms are beautiful - but I think anyone should prefer it to having a nuclear energy plant in their back yard and our oceans are much more beautiful with a windfarm in it - than with an oil slick and much more helpful to the environment.

I'll try to get Hunter who spent a year writing his honors thesis on this to shorten and submit part of it to the Observer for an article. He, like you, was completely on the side of conservation when he started and then saw what a failure it was and began to investigate why. He then began looking at alternatives to it. We have been trying conservation for as long as I have been alive - and lets face it - it works only to a limited extent - because people are not willing to participate.

Hunter notes:
"There were many reasons I found that environmentalism isn’t accepted by the majority of people. The message of environmentalism was one of doing without, sitting in the dark, freezing in the winter or boiling in the summer. Not only was this depressing, people were not willing to do it when they perceived that their neighbor wouldn’t. "

Gore, who pretty much agrees with Hunter's concept has attempted to address this by repackaging the sales message. His group is spending 100 million a year for 3 years to sell conservation.

A much more exciting and promising area is to combine conservation with innovation, something our country is very good at doing. Some books like Igniting America’s Clean Energy Economy by Jay Inslee and Bracken Hendricks. This book has a forward by Bill Clinton as well. This seems to be the policy that Obama's administration will be following.

While I don't disagree that conservation is a part of the solution, innovation is a huge part as well. Simply look at the flourscent light bulb, this is an excellent way of reducing energy usage without having to sit in the dark.

[Gary Rice]

Sorry, I just don't buy into a lot of this stuff yet.

I seem to recall a story that some of those new light bulbs can carry toxins that could even bring a HAZ-MAT crew to your door, if they're broken. Is that true or false?

People have known for years that reasonable care had to be exercised, even with those old florescent tubes.

Energy efficiency for some, might unfortunately become toxic pollution in some landfill for others years later.

Wind mills generate energy yes, but efficiently or sufficiently enough? That's the problem. If they were better at what they are supposed to do, I think that they would already have been flowering like the daffodils of springtime.

It's not that we give up on technology. Quite the opposite, it seems to be coming on quite strongly. It does boils down to a fundamental question of physics though...For everything gained in a design, it seems to come with a new compromise or cost.

I think that we need to know that cost, before we jump into a pool of "improvements" with both feet.

It's probably relatively easy to come up with a perceived improvement. The question is, what is given up to achieve it?

Conservation and technology are both laudable goals, but they must be tempered with common sense and caution.

All just my opinion....

[Gary Rice]

I do think that we need to look at all of these new things thoughtfully though, as they come along.

We installed a 90% efficient boiler in our home last year, and that seems to have been a good move to cut gas consumption.

It is possible, as Lynn alludes, to be comfortable while saving money, but one needs to carefully weigh the pros and cons of one's own individual situations first, as to what will work for their own home.

[Donald Farris]

Hi,
I believe the President wants to implement green renewable energies where possible. He understands there are many questions and communities need to determine if they want to participate or watch what others do.

To encourage communities to jump in the renewable energy experiment he is placing large sums of money for those willing to work through implementation.

I do not think the cost of windmills (or other renewable energies) will be a factor for those that jump in now. It's free money from the federal government for those willing to do it now. While this may sound risky to you, remember that this is implemented technology in many other parts of the World. We are not talking about version 1.0 of windmills. We are talking about implementing version 5 or 6.

If it doesn't work or costs too much, what's the risk? There's always the fallback to conventional power.

The discussion (I think for us) is: Does Lakewood want to be a leader or a follower in this national push to get America off of foreign oil?

An additional factor when considering cost is the cost of sending our dollars over to the middle east for oil versus keeping our dollars hear in America to cycle around again and again. Think about it. Billions probably trillions of dollars a year that we now send over and place in other peoples hands can be redirected into America's economy.

[Gary Rice]

Sometimes though, green can conflict with green.

There are stringent EPA and treaty rules as to what can flow into, or be put into, our international fresh water Lake Erie.

As part of the largest fresh water flow-through in the world, putting more stuff into, or on, that lake would need to be considered carefully.

Whether that would be windmills or oil derreks, this is not the North Sea we're discussing here. This is a drinking water supply for millions.

Let's be careful what we do and not let big money or gift horses ruin what little we have left, without raising honest questions first.

Scepticism can be green too, ya' know.

[Donald Farris]

Hi,
I agree sometimes green can conflict with "green". For instance all those hybrid cars that now use toxic batteries that can not be disposed of in any way except to send them to a third world country where bad things can happen out of the sight of the public.

I know our Lake is critical.

See: http://www.wwdmag.com/BP-Allowed-to-Con ... Piece14075 Can you think of anything worse for us to drink than mercury?

Right now with existing power facilities on the edge of our Lake we have nuclear power plants and many coal burning plants. Replacing them with clean non-polluting windmills would be very helpful. Windmills are a step in the right direction.

[Tim Liston]

You want windmills or alternative energy sources? Here's how I would do it.

Let's say it costs four cents per Kwh for today's non-renewable, carbon-based electricity, and it costs 10 cents per Kwh for wind-generated power.

I would propose a tax on electricity of six cents per Kwh. This would promote conservation, and it would put wind power on an even footing with conventional non-renewable power. Then rather than have government passing out subsidies to companies run by the friends of whatever party happens to be in charge, the “free marketâ€￾ could decide if/who/how wind power gets implemented. I sure don't want Obama or anyone else deciding who gets their hands on hundreds of billions of dollars, and deciding how it gets spent/wasted.

Use the revenue generated by the tax to reduce other broad-based taxes (e.g. payroll taxes) or to enhance the earned income tax credit and get folks back to work. Or use it to fund public transportation or carbon sequestration projects, further reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

I honestly have no problem with alternative energy. I do have a problem with the notion that alternative energy can help us maintain the status quo. It can't. It's too expensive for that. And the longer it takes to figure that out, the worse the transition, if there can even be a transition, will be. And I have a bigger problem with the notion that conservation should be voluntary. That's what all these subsidies and cap-and-trade and other schemes seek to do. They won't work. We'll continue to deplete the easy fuel sources until there is little left. Then TSHTF....

[Donald Farris]

Hi,
Glad to here you still have a job. We do too, but sadly many other people don't The idea here is to help the economy.

Without government aid to the electric companies how much would that 4 cent per Kwh really be? Who knows.

I agree with your thought butright now thats not te way America is rolling.

[Tim Liston]

[Bret Callentine]

Honest Question: Which would provide more renewable energy to the immediate area - a wind farm in the lake or a hydroelectric dam built under the I-90 overpass of Rocky River?

Which would cost more?

Sure, we'd lose that part of the metroparks, but isn't it about what we are and aren't willing to sacrifice? And couldn't you just build new golf courses and parks in land that you could reclaim from foreclosed upon properties?

Just a thought. Truth be told, I don't think either would be any more effective or efficient than if we built a new nuclear power plant.

[Lynn Farris]

Bret, I don't think it is an either or solution. We should look at hydo electric power. We should look at solar power - yes even in Lakewood. We should look at geothermal power. We should look at wind power - the most favorable I think in our area. We should look at ways to conserve.

I have worked at three nuclear power plants, Davis-Besse, Perry and Rochester. The regulations after 3 mile island has made the cost of putting up a new nuclear plant almost unafordable. (I'm not against the regulations - it is just cost prohibitive.) See how many new plants have started after 3 Mile Island. Perry was supposed to have 2 reactors and reduced it to 1 because of the cost. Plus we have centralized the power source which is a great target for terrorists attacks. Spreading the power generation all over in solar, wind etc, makes it much harder to take out the power of an entire city and it is more efficient. Additionally we really don't have a good solution for the waste. Plus if there is a NIMBY reaction to wind mills, it is much stronger to a Nuclear Power Plant.

Gary, I have to agree with Don, the Coal plants on the lake have caused us to have so much contamination that pregnant women are told not to eat fish in that water. Wind mills do not generate any pollution.

I think that city hall is really an ugly building. But it is the right size to be a great labratory for green energy. Let's look at a alternatives there. There are lots of exciting ways we can do it - green roof, white pavement, more trees. It is a great PR statement that Lakewood is green and can help us reduce costs and show other Lakewood citizens and the world, good ideas for going green.

[Will Brown]

[quote="Tim Liston"]You want windmills or alternative energy sources? Here's how I would do it.

Let's say it costs four cents per Kwh for today's non-renewable, carbon-based electricity, and it costs 10 cents per Kwh for wind-generated power.

I would propose a tax on electricity of six cents per Kwh. This would promote conservation, and it would put wind power on an even footing with conventional non-renewable power. Then rather than have government passing out subsidies to companies run by the friends of whatever party happens to be in charge, the “free marketâ€￾ could decide if/who/how wind power gets implemented. I sure don't want Obama or anyone else deciding who gets their hands on hundreds of billions of dollars, and deciding how it gets spent/wasted.

Use the revenue generated by the tax to reduce other broad-based taxes (e.g. payroll taxes) or to enhance the earned income tax credit and get folks back to work. Or use it to fund public transportation or carbon sequestration projects, further reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

I honestly have no problem with alternative energy. I do have a problem with the notion that alternative energy can help us maintain the status quo. It can't. It's too expensive for that. And the longer it takes to figure that out, the worse the transition, if there can even be a transition, will be. And I have a bigger problem with the notion that conservation should be voluntary. That's what all these subsidies and cap-and-trade and other schemes seek to do. They won't work. We'll continue to deplete the easy fuel sources until there is little left. Then TSHTF....[/quote]

As written, what you say doesn't make sense. Since carbon based power generators and wind based power generators both produce electricity, your six cent tax on electricity would mean that wind based power would still be at a six cent disadvantage.

If you are proposing a tax on only carbon based generation, that might give a competitive advantage to wind generators, assumint that they lasted as long as carbon based facilities, and that no one did anything to improve the efficiency of carbon based facilities, or discovered a new cheaper source of fuel. The problem with such an incentive is that it would be a product of the best thinking, not of experts, but of politicians: the same group that gave us the no child left behind act, and that, in the opinion of many, caused our current housing crisis by creating incentives for everyone to buy a home, whether or not they could afford it. Not that I think a tax on electricity would be a bad thing; it would give us all an incentive to find a way to use less, which is something we apparently won't do on our own. Similarly, a high tax on gasoline would give us all an incentive to use less, whether by buying more efficient vehicles or by finding alternative methods of transportation; Europe is an example of how this works: with gas priced very high people take trains or busses or bicycles, and small high-mileage cars are common, while large inefficient vehicles are rare.

I'm not sold yet on windpower. While one poster asserts that it is a well developed technology, that is not my impression. I suppose he sees success in the windmills that were common a couple of hundred years ago, but which have been virtually abandoned as sources of power (they do make nice postcards). Farms of more recent vintage used windmills to power their wells, but those too have been abandoned.

One of the main problems with going green is that it relies on unproven and expensive technology. I think we should temper our enthusiasm with a healthy dose of practicality. I'm not against going green, but before making such a major investment, I would want to see evidence of how long the equipment would remain efficient, and how much it would cost to replace it in a responsible manner.

I put in a high efficiency furnace quite a few years ago, and it has done well, but has needed more maintenance, and more expensive maintenance that the one it replaced, and has certainly been more problematic than the old coal burning monster my parents had for many years.

Geothermal heating and cooling seems promising to me, but the costs of installation are huge and I wonder how long the buried pipes will last. Also, if we all start sucking the heat out of the soil, will we exhaust it, or is this a magically unending source of heat?

[sharon kinsella]

Holland and farms in the 1800's.