- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -

« News Home

Company in Valley takes lead in $100M wind project

Published: Sun, September 19, 2010 @ 12:10 a.m.

Related: Tour green-energy businesses and homes in Mahoning County




A Youngstown company is at the forefront of a $100 million plan to build the country’s first offshore wind farm on Lake Erie.

Great Lakes Wind Energy, a Youngstown-based renewable energy company, will partner with Bechtel Corp. — the company that built the Hoover Dam, among other behemoth projects — and Houston-based private-equity firm Cavallo Energy to build five wind turbines off the lake’s Cleveland coast.

The “demonstration project” is the first step in a 10-year plan to build 200 turbines on the lake, giving a kick-start to the region’s renewable-energy industry.

The project development team, which brings together some of the biggest players in the energy industry, was assembled by lifelong Youngstown resident Gene Ameduri, the managing director of Great Lakes Wind Energy.

Great Lakes Wind Energy was formed earlier this year to submit a proposal to the Lake Erie Energy Development Corp., the nonprofit organization that is spearheading the wind turbine project.

Amerduri, along with a team of offshore wind professionals from Rhode Island, New York and New Jersey, then approached Bechtel and Cavallo, companies with a track record of building and investing in massive energy projects.

“We needed a team that could construct the project and finance it,” Ameduri said. “So we brought all these parties together and wrote a very competitive proposal.”

The partners have formed a new development company, Great Lakes Ohio Wind, which will be managed by Great Lakes Wind Energy manager Chris Wisseman, a New Jersey-based offshore wind expert.

The involvement of Bechtel and Cavallo is “an indictor that the Ohio wind industry is organized and real,” Wisseman said. “This is the fastest pathway for an offshore wind project.”

In addition to funding, Bechtel will supply engineering and build the massive structures that will hold the turbines. Cavallo, which is in the process of building a power transmission line under the Hudson River, will develop the energy generation and transmission.

Great Lakes Wind Energy will be responsible for managing the project “on the ground,” Wisseman said. The company will coordinate activities among the partners involved, including General Electric, which is supplying the turbines.

“We are effectively the conductor of the talent,” he said. “We are in charge of pulling together all of the pieces to get the project ready to go to construction.”

The company will also be responsible for securing financing for the project and working with 18 government agencies overseeing the project, he said.

The project, set to be completed by the end of 2012, will likely create 600 jobs, Ameduri said. The long-term proposal, due to be finished in 2020, will create between 6,000 and 9,000 jobs as the state builds a wind-industry supply chain, he said.

“The thrust of this is really job creation,” Ameduri said. “We are not just building a demonstration project, we are building a new industry in Ohio.”

The Lake Erie wind project has received praise from elected officials, including Gov. Ted Strickland and U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown. U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan of Niles, D-17th, said he is particularly pleased that a Youngstown company is involved in the plan.

“These types of connections between the Mahoning Valley and the rest of Northeast Ohio are integral parts of building the Tech Belt – and rebuilding our local economy,” Ryan said.


1UnionForever(1470 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

More Demorat Tax & Spend on a technology that doesn't pay for itself. Strickline & Ryan will be gone in November and Brown will follow when he's up for re-election. We can't continue this liberal socialist insanity spending of money that our grandchildren will be paying back to the Chinese for years to come. Stop the spending and let's balance the budget now. Vote these spenders out of town and out of our state.

Kasich & Graham - YES in November!!!

Suggest removal:

2Springman(235 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

The objections above sound like Luddite penny wise/pound foolish opposition to the space program, the internet and the interstate highway system and lots of other bipartisan forays into new technology.

"The long-term proposal, due to be finished in 2020, will create between 6,000 and 9,000 jobs as the state builds a wind-industry supply chain,...."

Not only is wind energy less polluting, it doesn't require outlays for fuel and it creates jobs -- not in China, Indonesia and the Philippines -- but here. During construction, the wages paid to workers will be spent here, stimulating local businesses, and the money will circulate locally and will recycle into even more jobs.

In my opinion, the greatest thing that the country has ever done to grow the economy was the Homestead Act of 1862, which begat railroads, manufacturing and the development of the west. In the long run, the space program may turn out to be even more important.

Althernative energy also has that potential. Right now much of our income is sent out of the country -- and the largest part is for fuel, mostly to countries that are not necessarily our allies. Because the money spent on wind power will help us displace our foreign dependency, alternative energy is also a national security initiative.

Suggest removal:

3iBuck(205 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

Distributed wind turbines would be much better than these splashy, centralized, monopolistic government/tax-victim-funded projects.

Suggest removal:

4ytown01(21 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

So the usual rhetoric from the right. Make a statement with no facts to back it up then expect not to be challenged. Then when you are found out make something else up. Does that sound like Sean, Rush, Beck, Levine, Palin and the rest. I guess the people of Indiana that built and receive there power from the fowlers ridge 600 MW wind farm are all socialist commies !!!! Not. Anytime anyone in the US can do something to prevent us from sending 1 more dollar to our enemies in the middle east (we have no allies other than israel) they should be rewarded. President Carter started the department of energy in the 70's with a mandate to find alternative energy to middle eastern oil. Unfortunately it was hijacked by the oil barons ( anyone remember $5 a gallon gas) and instead of importing 30 % of our oil we now get 70%. Who is benefitting from this? is it the working man??? Does anyone realize that Prescott Bush opened the Saudi oil fields. How much money from the house of Saud supports our terrorist enemies? How blind can America be? Support your local companies innovations. Pay a little more and buy american, Oh and since your right thinking brain will assume I am a union member I am not.. Wake up America and stop being lead like sheep by right wing radio and tv ENTERTAINERS check your facts before you spout off. There are issues with wind energy systems but they can be overcome. and I would much rather work on that then supply our enemies with the weapons to kill us

Suggest removal:

5UnionForever(1470 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

Noise polution - those turbines go Whop Whop Whop Whop etc. all day and all night from what the folks are saying that live near them now. Just like at a JJ Cafaro party.

Suggest removal:

6Jerry(444 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

Contrary to what ytown01 implies, I have spent a great deal of time researching wind energy projects, and the Great Lakes Pilot Project in particular. Please refer to my article published this last summer at http://www.masterresource.org/2010/06... . The facts and analysis are there; and while you are on the site, you may wish to take a look at the other information on energy strategy offered by the other contributors to this site that have far more expertise and knowledge on the subject than me.

The facts are:
- Investment in these wind turbines will be lost, because the wind turbines can not produce enough reliable electricity to pay for themselves.
- To make these projects work, massive and continuing government subsidies and large increases in the cost paid for electricity will be required to offset the investment losses and attract investors.
- Any supposed reduction in the use of conventional power generation is a myth, because every watt generated by the wind will need to be backed up by natural gas, nuclear, or coal (for when the wind is not blowing). Therefore, the investment in wind power is simply an added cost that does not displace any of our other costs.
- Any supposed reductions in pollution or emissions of “green house gasses” associated with use of wind power is highly suspect, because of the need to continue to operate conventional generation systems and the need to operate them in an inefficient on-and-off cycling manner to offset the variability of the power coming from the wind. Please refer to the information and research presented by Robert Bierce in his recent article in the Wall Street Journal http://www.energytribune.com/articles...
In particular take a look at the last paragraph of this article and the quote from Kevin Forbes, the director of the Center for the Study of Energy and Environmental Stewardship at Catholic University’ “Wind energy gives people a nice warm fuzzy feeling that we’re taking action on climate change.” But when it comes to CO2 emissions, “the reality is that it’s not doing much of anything.”
- With regard to jobs, what about the jobs that will be destroyed by the economic burden that wasting money on wind power will cause? Meaningful jobs can not be created if they do not produce a meaningful and useful product or service. We might as well be paying people to dig holes in the ground for no specific reason.
- If you are concerned about our dependence on oil, what does generating electricity have to do with oil? The answer is nothing, considering that less than 1% of the electricity used in the United States comes from burning oil. In fact, by raising the cost of electricity (which forced utilization of wind power will do) will hamper and delay any efforts to transition ourselves away from oil for the reasons we do use oil, home heating and gasoline for automobiles.

Suggest removal:

7Jerry(444 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

I am not against modifying our energy strategy; it is obvious that this is something we must do. Wind power, however, is not the answer and wastes resources that could be used for more effective endeavors. It is a feel good scam. We should be investing in improvements for cleaner coal, nuclear fission, and natural gas to keep us going in the short term (100 years and maybe a lot more). In the longer term, in my opinion, nuclear fusion has promise; and other developments may occur. Whatever our strategy, it needs to be evaluated in terms of power density, scale and cost; as Robert Byrce suggests. Wind power fails in all categories.

Suggest removal:

8Nunya(1356 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

@ Jerry

I strongly disagree with you for factual reasons. See aside from asking just what resources can be wasted in harvesting wind energy?

See for you to call it a scam as you allege. Is for one to contend that windmills were a farce. And or they either preposterously never existed, worked, were a waste and or a,... scam?

See I happened to have drafted a solar energy fueled home in high school. Where with my teacher having solicited the assistance of a few engineers. They helped me with a few advanced things that I hadn't learned yet to refine and finish it.

Not only did it get me honors in that class. But it got me recruited for academic scholarships to a number of schools. As well as brought offerings of paid apprenticeships to a number of corporations.

Where in retrospect California is a model state of just how successful harvesting solar energy and wind turbines are. See in comparison to that and by your position. Would be my directing readers to recall a ponzi outfit called ENRON.

See I know what I'm talking about here and I also know that the very Robert Byrce you speak of is grossly inaccurate.

Here's to exposing Robert Byrce,.. http://www.cleantechblog.com/2010/04/...

Suggest removal:

9Springman(235 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

When Daimler invented the automobile, it could only do about 1 mph and coouldn't run on paved highways because there weren't any. Look how far it has progressed.

Jerry, you are spreading disinformation:


Windpower, which has been used as an energy source since pre-history, like automotive propulsion, has a tremendous upside, Nothing you say will deny that fact. BTW, many of us choose to buy windpower even if is not currently "cost effective" as it is completely non-poluting and because it displaces foreign dependence on energy NOW. Some of uas put our country ahead of the almighty buck.

As to some of the other allegations, please note that solar PVs which used to be expensive, are now quiote inexpensive and the costs are declining..

Suggest removal:

10Stan(9923 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

Birds flying across the lake into Canada will be the victims of these wind turbines . Going green on Lake Erie will turn the water a bloody red . Power transmission cables shorting out will electrocute the marine life .

Suggest removal:

11Nunya(1356 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

@ db2

You're an idiot,..

First off it's apparent you've never heard of the invention, usage and or successful benefits of whats called a windmill.

Of course that's aside from your wanting to serve as a mere hot air source vying to replace it as a second hand fart,.. LMAO !!!

See amidst your litany of LIES alleging China & Spain are benefactors of the Obama administrations Stimulus. That you somehow tried to wedge Tim Ryan into your muddled mess of muck.

You laughably leap into continuing to try to direct the populous to embrace a dependency on Oil. Which we already know isn't a limitless source. To include it creates a myriad of environmental and economic hazards.

But somehow you lying loons that's being used by tycoons to try your hoofs at keeping consumers held prey for profit pilfering ponzi schemes.

Just don't add up when truth tellers and fact checkers like Springman, ytown01 and myself.

See you're clearly a republican puppet and if talking energy to clarify your accord. Then surely we need to introduce the readers to our president, the democratic congress,.. and your guy named Joe Barton.

See Joe Barton is the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee that sounds like you and your handlers has you programmed to try to propagandize for.

Here's that Joe " BP " Barton,.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4elLeT...

Here's who Barton was apologizing to,.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRguqI...

Here's the presidents priorities and position,.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrDk3y...

See no doubt this president has our resources, directional path and energy focus unquestionably headed in the right direction.

For which he's surrounded himself by a wealth of bright minds that are aiding the country by rendering their educated insight public services.

So now you just keep right on lying and allowing us to show the people whats at stake. Which is a comparison between who's trying to LIE about why we shouldn't embrace a better, more cost efficient, abundantly natural and environmentally safe way to do business.

Suggest removal:

12Traveler(606 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

As someone who has worked on coal power plants to build them and maintain them i can tell you they take about 2000 workers to build all high skilled and highly paid for about 2 years. Then about twice a year (spring&fall) they need shut down for repairs they will hire short-term about 150+ people to do the work for about 2 weeks mass overtime great money. Plus the coal they burn is mined by US miners even more jobs. Then figure there power is still cheaper.

SO to add it all up more jobs cheaper power to light your house. Why are we even trying wind?

Suggest removal:

13Jerry(444 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

I am not even going to try to respond to the raving of Nunya.

@ Springman:

It is your opinion that I am spreading misinformation. It is my opinion that the proponents of subsidized wind power are the ones spreading the misinformation.

I will look at the sites you suggest, to review the information they provide. One thing that I can note immediately, however, is that “greentechmedia” and “renewableenergyworld” are obviously sites set up for the purpose of promoting solar and wind power generation, so of course they would disagree with Robert Byrce, the folks at mastrerresource.org, and me.

With regard to the fact that wind power has been used as an energy source since pre-history; this is obviously true. This also puts the lie to the notion that wind power is developmental and just needs more time and subsidies. Wind power has proven to be too inconsistent and inefficient, and unable to meet the needs of the growing population of the world.

It is also apparent that you would like to paint me as an uncaring; implying that you are part of a morally superior group that “put our country ahead of the almighty buck.” I contend, however, that I do care very much. I see that wasting resources on wind power distracts us from directing resources in directions that can be successful. As I indicated, in my opinion natural gas and nuclear are the promising short and long-term options; and pumping money into improving the reliability and efficiency of the distribution system (grid) would also be advisable. I do not accept that wind energy generation is “non-polluting” or “free”; like everything else, it has costs and trade-offs.

Suggest removal:

14city_resident(501 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

"Why are we even trying wind?"

How many people have died while mining coal? How many mountains have been flattened to find more coal? How much pollution does a coal power plant produce?

Suggest removal:

15Nunya(1356 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

@ Stan

Oh Jeez,..

Stanley, what an immense benefit to have your type of quackery infused here. See not that you'll sound any more sensible than the other loons of your accord that's getting dismantled for trying to mislead here.

However, not only is your theory a less word littered laugh. But this is a technological conversation that clearly neither your brand or level of comprehension is suited for.

See you're to remain practicing your craft of race baiting and defending pedophilia in regards to scope of serial silliness.

Suggest removal:

16Nunya(1356 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

@ Jerry

Sure you won't respond to how I just make a mockery out of what you so ridiculously alleged.

I knew you wouldn't because you stand no chance of selling those LIES with me dismantling them so completely,.. you're HUMILIATED !!!

Now you're just another LIAR that's joined the long and laughable list of cunning clowns. Whom had your caper foiled by those like me who refuse to let you mislead people.

It's textbook there Jerry Saferri. The populous just witnessed how you so profoundly LIED to them. Then noted how you cowered when confronted with truth beyond your bubbling BS.

Where if you think my having made quick business of you was something,.. YOU AIN'T SEE NOTHIN YET !!!

Suggest removal:

17Nunya(1356 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

@ Traveler

Are you serious?

In response " city_resident " just laid out the fact filled basics why we're harnessing wind power.

To include it combats the corruption and criminality of those cash crab kingpins funding their killing by Coal.

Ever heard of Don Blankenship,.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgzbIo...

Listen real good,.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4Ym8q...

How about the effect's of a probe,.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgWgID...

Get the picture?

Suggest removal:

18Traveler(606 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

I oppose wind power because the fact that i subsidize it with my taxes and the fact it is going to make my electric bill go up. If i had the option to opt out so it didn't cost my extra. The option to get my power from only gas, coal, or nukes. Something that employees my friends and me in the past. i wouldn't mind but forcing it on me and my electric bill is wrong

Suggest removal:

19Stan(9923 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

Nunya :

"@ Stan

Oh Jeez,..

Stanley, what an immense benefit to have your type of quackery infused here."

So you don't like the LIBERAL POINT OF VIEW ? Why should they not be scrutinized on environmental issues ? They shure come up with multitudes of crap over mining coal and drilling for oil & gas . Windpower built in a lake is not without pitfalls .

Suggest removal:

20300(552 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

Jerry, I read your article. But, there are some major faults.

1. It's clear that you weren't objective from the beginning. It was your goal to prove that your opinion would turn our true. Honestly, that in itself is enough to discount it as an opinion piece, not a research piece.

2. I read it fairly quickly, so I may have simply overlooked it, but I didn't see anything about Iowa in it. Currently, that state is approaching 20% of its electricity that is generated by wind. Now, I realized that there are a lot of aspects that would need to be covered to explain fully this situation, but nonetheless a nascent wind-energy industry is already to 1/5 total output.

3. You ignore ALL externalities of coal-generated electricity. Other than birds getting cut down (which costs us nothing), wind has none of the cancer-causing pollutants that coal puts out. We all know (at least the serious of us) that "clean coal" is a PR campaign. In reality, the pollution in heavy coal-burning regions of the US costs our economy billions every year in medical procedures that have been linked with various pollutants put into the atmosphere by burning coal.

What you wrote is pure opinion-driven writing. If your research had undoubtedly proven otherwise would Ken Lay's former secretary have printed it? Surely not.

In and of themselves, our interstate system never paid for itself through tolls. Many of our ports never paid for themselves through tariffs, and our railroads weren't all privately financed (even most that were, those owners were able to get a lot of concessions from Washington in return).

The point is that the government has a role to play in advancing nascent technologies. You may argue the mechanics behind turbine technology, but you shouldn't mask that as some sort of "economic" analysis.

Suggest removal:

21Jerry(444 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

To 300:

I appreciate that you did actually look at the article.

1.) I believe I was objective. Yes, this is an opinion piece, but the opinion is the result of the research and study of the issue. I think I made it abundantly clear from the start of the article that I was stating opinion by using phrases such as “I believe…” and “It occurs to me….” repeatedly, and then backing up my opinion with documentation and analysis. I put my name on it, cited my sources, and published my analysis for everyone to look at. You, of course, may choose to agree or disagree.

2.) You are correct; I have not specifically researched anything in Iowa. What is pertinent about Iowa generating almost 20% of its electricity from wind? I presume this is due to a mandate of some sort. Is it really 20%; how is that measured? How much does it cost? What level of subsidies are they paying? Have they eliminated any conventional capacity at all? Has there been any measurement to indicate that their GHG emissions have decreased?

3.) I do not ignore the “externals” of coal, I was not writing about coal. Reliance on coal does not represent the main opinion I am offering for the future of our energy strategy. I indicated that we could benefit by expending some resources to improve the cleanliness of coal, but I have clearly stated that my personal belief is that natural gas and nuclear offer the most promise. I also mentioned improving the efficiency of the grid, which I think we can all agree on. BTW, I also know that the level of subsidies per MWh received by coal is measured in pennies, while the level of subsidies per MWh bestowed on wind energy exceeds $20.00. Also, if all the billions of dollars that are spent on health issues attributed to coal for the past 40 years were divided by the terawatt-hours of electricity produce by coal in that same time period, the resulting addition to the coal subsidies would be a couple more pennies per MWh, if that.

You mentioned birds, although I do not know why; I never mentioned birds at all in my analysis. You also allude to Robert Bradley’s (of masterresouce.org) history with Enron. Did you read his recent piece indicating how Enron was involved in the early expansion of the US wind industry in the 90’s? http://www.masterresource.org/2010/09...

Finally, you mentioned the roads, ports, and railroads, which were funded via public money. Again, I do not see how this is pertinent. Roads, and other things, are necessary pieces of infrastructure that we must have and that return value to society. I have no problem with spending money paving roads. I would have a big problem with spending a lot of extra money paving roads with some extra special expensive pavement that we could only drive on when the wind is blowing, necessitating the need to pave and maintain other regular roads to the same places that we could drive on when the wind is not blowing.

Suggest removal:

22ytown01(21 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

How much oil does it take to mine the coal to burn in the coal fired plants???? you know clean coal. how much oil does it take to build and store nuclear plants and the waste. Look if we as americans cannot look beneathe the surface of the issues that face us then perhaps we deserve what we get. No one ever said wind farms will solve all our problems but had we continued with alternate energy sources chances are american ingenuity would already have it more reliable and affordable.Funny thing when resources are applied to a problem solutions ae usually found. We currently generate a little over 2 % of our electricity through wind power. could be 20% in 20 years with the proper research and investment, All sources will be needed, We must drill for our own oil and gas but we must not ruin our fisheries (gulf of mexico) Yeah you go ahead and believe its clean and no damage has been done. or in the case of the marcellas shale deposits your water table. The one thing I know for sure is we as humans need clean air to breathe and clean water to drink otherwise we are not having this conversation. Keep that in mind the next time you hear drill baby drill or how terrible it is that there is a offshore drilling moratorium. I hope you dont like Gulf Seafood

Suggest removal:

23ytown01(21 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

one more thing Name 1 energy industry that does not get government subsidies in some for or fashion

Suggest removal:

24Springman(235 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

Jerry, you are a shill for big oil and that means the Saudis, Iran, Venezuela, etc. You may be entitled to an opinion, but not your own facts.

Countries like Denmark already have almost completely shifted to use of wind over any other source, and that scares the competition. The United States is actually the Saudi Arabia of wind, and growth in states like Iowa are proof that there is a lot more to come.

Competition in the wind sector has made the cost of the equipment fall; in fact the cost of turbines has been reduced by 80% over past 10 years thus effecting revenue inspite the surge in demand.

Wind power, like solar power , is an alternative energy resources of virtually unlimited potential especially in the offshore wind farms which has even a greater potential estimated at 750 gigawatt.

According to the World Wind Energy Association ( WWEA) the industry experienced double digit growth in 2009 and and this trend is expected to continue in 2010 despite the general economic crisis last year.The data ,for example suggests that 5500 MW of new capacity was installed in the first quarter of 2009 representing some 23% growth year-over- year and 30,000 MW annually.

Suggest removal:

25VINDYAK(1799 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

I recently read in another report that wind power costs 12 cents per kilowatt hour to produce, while our current energy costs without wind power are at 7 cents per kilowatt hour. I believe this is why energy companies such as First Energy are reluctant to invest in this form of energy.

Suggest removal:

26cambridge(2918 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

I live in Alameda California which is an island in the San Francisco Bay. About two miles wide, seven miles long with a population of around 72,000.

Alameda has the oldest municipally owned power company in the country. The power is 80% clean and renewable and is obtained from wind, landfill gas and geothermal. As power from solar farms is more available it will be added to the grid,

My electric bill averages around $25 a month.


Suggest removal:

27300(552 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

Jerry, I definitely agree with you vis-a-vis nuclear and natural gas. But since coal is currently the primary producer of electricity, it has to serve as the basis of the argument for comparison. That's why I used it in my post.

1. The problem when making an economic argument is that whenever you add your opinion, you'll be criticized for it. It's good that you attach your name to it, I'd like to give mine but with the kinds of people you get on this forum I won't be doing that anytime soon.

2. The pertinence of the Iowa situation is that it's any example of where wind-produced electricity is used on a larger scale. Comparing energy costs in Des Moines vs. those in Youngstown could help to shed light on pricing; especially since energy is largely inelastic. Also, it was measured in Mwh I believe (I work with engineers, but I'm an economist, so don't take my word on the watt hours).

3. They're called "externalities" in economics, not "externals." I'm only making that point because you put it in quotations. I've heard people say externals, but they're usually in their 80s or 90s. But, the importance is that if you're arguing that wind will not pay for its subsidies, you're arguing "costs" which must include the negative externalities of what its being compared against. Even if coal isn't the crux of your argument, it's still the main player in electricity (and certainly in this part of the country). This is where wind is much cheaper than coal, and nuclear (which I support) has many potential externalities. From a macro perspective, the billions of dollars spent in reaction to coal pollution must be brought into the equation. These are still dollars spent, whether for the delivery of electricity, or the medical treatments needed due to pollution. On micro level, well, you've got traveler pretty much explaining that side.

I mention the roads/ports/etc. because mastersource.org is clearly against government investment in alternative energy sources (even though these same entities never seem to refuse government payouts to their companies). I was pointing out all the other things that have greatly benefited us that were not financed by private industry. Transportation infrastructure/energy infrastructure/education/etc can at times be profitable for firms, but in many cases these are public goods, or at least they started that way. To argue that wind should be entirely privately financed is neglecting that most infrastructure was government funded at the beginning. Once the infrastructure is provided, private enterprise can then take off.

When analyzing wind-energy all of these factors need to be addressed to understand fully the cost of each unit produced. Then after that cost is established, we can see which is cheaper. Then we can start the normative debate over which route to take.

Suggest removal:

28Jerry(444 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

ytown01 – How much oil does it take to build a wind turbine (and there will have to be a lot of them)?

I will say again, oil has little to nothing to do with generating electricity in the USA, so any amount of wind turbines will not reduce our dependence on oil. By raising the cost of electricity, they will hamper efforts to reduce our dependency on oil.

Springman – Using your word, apparently you are a “shill” for the big wind industry, as they attempt to make the “almighty buck” selling wind turbines. You impugn my sources as biased while using sources like the World WIND Energy Association (no conflict of interest there).

Yes Denmark has implemented more wind generation than any other nation, and they have some of the most expensive electricity on the planet to show for it. They also still import coal, about as much as they did before; and they export oil from their North Sea drilling operations. In terms of raw energy they export way more oil than the energy they produce from wind. They currently produce around 314,000 barrels a day, up by a factor of 20 since 1981 when they produced 15,000 barrels per day. For comparison, my understanding is that their current wind energy production is approximately 19,400 MWh per day, which is the energy equivalent of 11,800 barrels of oil. They are also reliant on their neighbors for hydro-power to stabilize the variation in their wind power.

Actually, I would not be against investing in more RESEARCH regarding wind energy; or in implementing wind power generation in limited fashion where it can make some sense (like potentially in Hawaii – smaller isolated scope, good ocean winds, and current reliance on expensive imported fuels). With regard to R&D, if a viable electrical storage system could be developed, many of the issues I find fault with might be resolved; but that is a big IF.

What I am against, is handing money to the wind industry hand over fist, making a bunch of snake oil salesmen rich, to implement wind generation systems that can not help and will hurt our energy situation.

Suggest removal:

29Jerry(444 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

To Springman:

Sorry. I had not seen your comment 29 as I posted my comment 30.

To clarify some points, as I indicated, I am not against public investment in necessary infrastructure. What is in question here is getting bang for the buck, and what is necessary. Refer to my road paving analogy; I am against paying too much for something that does not serve us well.

I will look at Iowa, but the key unanswered questions are, “How is it working for them; how much are they really paying: and what are they really getting?”

Also, one more point I should have made about the case for wind generation in Hawaii is that an isolate volcanic island with a tightly packed population is admittedly probably not a good place for a nuclear plant.

Suggest removal:

30Nunya(1356 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago


Your misinformed,..

The production and consumer cost of wind and solar energy, are a measurably greater savings. Than continued reliance upon costly and colloquially hazardous pollutants such as Oil, coal, Hydro and nuclear in production, hazard, efficiency and availability.

Here's a tidbit on solar,.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTz2ur...

Where in regards to Wind technology,..

" In the early 1980's, when the first utility-scale wind turbines were installed, wind-generated electricity cost as much as 30 cents per kilowatt-hour. Now, state-of-the-art wind power plants at excellent sites are generating electricity at less than 5 cents/kWh. Costs are continuing to decline as more and larger plants are built and advanced technology is introduced.

Aside from actual cost, wind energy offers other economic benefits which make it even more competitive in the long term: "

Here's the link,.. http://www.awea.org/faq/cost.html

Companies like first energy has profit margin motives against those technologies. Because a cleaner, cheaper source can't be so easily manipulated.

Same holds true for those making personal profit mints out of gouging you by Oil, coal and hydro plant monopolies.

See the thing is renewable energies aren't just environmentally friendly and cuts down on carbon emissions and healthy. But they actually cut cost to consumers as well create more middle class jobs.

Also those jobs can't be exported and prospectors can't fleece consumers as prey like they do with petroleum, coal and Hydro conglomerates.

Suggest removal:

31Traveler(606 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

If you think that wind farms cant be manufacture over sea then ship here to be installed look up TB Pickens thats where his wind turbines where going to be made. Dont think that those huge conglomerates wont be able to fleece the consumer with wind power ether unless they can be made to be put in the back yard they will still have us by the balls. If you think that wind power is going to be break the power companies your delusional

Suggest removal:

32Nunya(1356 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

@ Traveler

Again you're missing everything here,..

First off nobodies suggesting nor attempting to break the power companies. The crux of all this is harvesting and refining cleaner, cheaper and limitless natural energies.

Which there can be no monopolies in a natural energy conversion because the market wouldn't allow it.

Where competitive rates for such are great for consumers and the job market. Where more when than if greed surfaces from marketing suppliers. In a viably saturated market competitors will make them regret it.

See in the wind and solar based markets. It doesn't take multi billion dollar refineries, tankers, offshore rigs or mining machinery to establish, harvest nor supply such service.

So the BP's, GE's, Exxon's, Halliburton's. Massey energy and your local utilities providers. As well as all those other supply line mavens and countries will be placed in competitive check.

See all that stated we haven't even touched on revising and designing a smarter, more reliable and efficient power grid.

See the more you understand this the more PO'd the mavens that's fleecing you will get,.. understand?

Check this criminal clown out,.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOFUJ0...

Where now having a president that's keen on supportively invoking this. You're going to hear all sorts of baseless skeptics, facts deficient cynics and mislead followers.

Mount a campaign of mass trumpeting a bevy of horror story based lies about him, supporters and the technology itself.

Just read here alone the facts that supporters are providing. As opposed to the lies that those who oppose are offering.

It's that clear and as fair as it gets. Neither I nor any other staunch supporter wrote nor contributed to the Lies that those oppose have presented,.. we've just debunked them.

Where in regards to desperately laborious liars get a load of " Jerry " in comparison here,.. ROTFFLMAO !!!

Suggest removal:

33Jerry(444 comments)posted 3 years, 7 months ago

To Springman:

I have not had a lot of time to research Iowa yet, but I did get some information from the Iowa Utility Board website tonight. They have reports up to 2008, so I don’t have anything more current than this as yet.

Here is what I found.

Coal represented 54.1% of their capacity (MW) and 75.6% of the actual electricity produced (MWh). The capacity factor for coal was 60%.
Nuclear represented 5.0% of their capacity (MW) and 11.2% of the actual electricity produced (MWh). The capacity factor for nuclear was 97%
Wind represented 7.7% of their capacity (MW) and 5.1% of the actual electricity produced (MWh). The capacity factor for wind was 28%.

Coal represented 50.2% of their capacity (MW) and 76.1% of the actual electricity produced (MWh). The capacity factor for coal was 61%.
Nuclear represented 4.6% of their capacity (MW) and 10.0% of the actual electricity produced (MWh). The capacity factor for nuclear was 89%
Wind represented 17.8% of their capacity (MW) and 7.7% of the actual electricity produced (MWh). The capacity factor for wind was 18%.

Capacity factor is calculated as ACTUAL ELECTICITY (MWh) / [CAPACITY (MW) x 8760 hrs]

How can Wind represent 17.8% of their capacity, but only generate 7.7% of their electricity? This would be because it is an inherently weak performer that can not be relied upon to operate at its nameplate capacity. Also note that the more wind generation they put in place, the poorer it performed with regard to capacity factor.

Next I will try to find out how much they actually paid for their wind generation capacity, and what they are paying for the electricity generated by the wind.

Suggest removal:

34cambridge(2918 comments)posted 3 years, 6 months ago

Jerry and Springman.....Instead of arguing if clean renewable energy is possible and cost effective just read post #28 on this thread and click on the link. It's already being done.

Suggest removal:


HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes | Pittsburgh International Airport