Why put wind turbines on Lake Michigan when that would cost at least five times as much as putting them on land?
Cost doesn’t matter in Illinois when it comes to spending on renewable energy ideas. The latest example of wind turbines on Lake Michigan is particularly egregious, and even environmental cost seems not to matter.
Supporters of the idea didn’t get their legislation through the General Assembly last session but intend to do so this session, according to a recent column by Greg Hinz at Crain’s. The idea is for a wind farm of 10 to 12 turbines on Lake Michigan off Chicago’s Southeast Side. The lead Senate sponsor of the measure last session was Robert Peters (D-Chicago) and a list of green progressives sponsored a similar concept in the House.
It sure would be nice if they’d take note of a recent, comprehensive, two-year study from the State of New York that looked at similar ideas for Lakes Erie and Huron. It slammed the idea.
The report, by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, is described in many articles from media bordering those lakes, such as here and here. “Great Lakes wind currently does not offer a unique, critical, or cost-effective contribution toward the achievement of New York State’s Climate Act goals beyond what existing, more cost-competitive programs are currently expected to deliver,” according to the New York study.
But its lessons apply to all the Great Lakes.
“There are valuable lessons in this comprehensive examination for anyone charged with or concerned about the care and future of The Great Lakes,” Lake Erie Foundation Board Member John Lipaj said after a review of the NYSERDA Study. “New York’s Authority rejects the concept of wind turbines in the lakes, sending a strong message to other states and federal regulators.”
Electricity from offshore turbines would cost almost five times that of land based turbines, according to the Lake Erie Foundation. Hinz, in an earlier column quoted Environmental Law & Policy Center Executive Director Howard Learner as saying the cost excess is even worse – six to eight times as much for lake over land turbines.
That means the subsidy the public will have to bear will be enormous — $680 million, according to Lerner, and possibly much higher.
Environmental concerns are also severe. Illinois environmental groups have been relatively quiet so far, being generally disposed to favor renewables, but it’s safe to say their opposition may come, as it has for the other Great Lakes turbine proposals.
How could such a foolish project gain support?
It offers two supposed sweeteners.
First, the legislation “contains provisions to ensure that the jobs generated from the project go towards the Black and Brown communities that need them the most,” its supporters say, and “if Illinois doesn’t pass this legislation now, it sends the wrong message both to the Black and Brown communities that are looking to Democrats to create the jobs they need, as well as to D.C.” Second, it has union support. International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150 is behind it.
We’ve often written that anything green gets a blank check in Illinois. Nobody cares about cost. But when you add racial justice and union support, you’re really in business.
Despite the cost issues he highlighted, Hinz wrote that he’s favorably disposed toward the project, subject to further review, because “our planet will be a toxic dust bowl if we wait for unamimity.” He also wrote that the “A recent report from New York state also cited the potential of power from the Great Lakes.” No, the New York report has been hailed by Great Lakes wind opponents for pretty much killing the idea.
One matter I have found no answer to was sparked by a couple emails I got during that very windy, cold patch we had before Christmas. Turbines shut down in the high wind, people noticed and told me. Indeed they do automatically go down around 50 MPH, I came to learn. Wouldn’t that be much more common out on the lake?
****************
In other wind turbine and renewable news, Gov. JB Pritzker is reportedly poised to sign legislation, already passed by both houses, that will override certain local control matters on wind turbines.
Among other things, it would to allow for setbacks of just 150 feet between solar panel fields and neighboring homes. The bill is opposed by two-thirds of Illinois counties.
Pritzker’s signature would violate an earlier campaign promise. He was asked if, as governor, whether he would support legislation to create statewide controls over the siting of wind or solar projects.
“No,” he answered. “In fact I’ve specifically avoided that. I don’t think that’s the way. We’ve got to have a continuous conversation, the one that we’ve been having for years now, between the state and local governments and local control, so that we decide together about siting.”
Promises, like cost, apparently also don’t matter when it comes to renewable energy.
Alerts Sign-up