If you're wondering how in the world this project could be economically viable for anybody involved - and the partners are the city of Ann Arbor; Ann Arbor Public Schools; and Wind Products, the company that estimated the output - it's all about the subsidy. The U.S. Department of Energy is ready to pony up $951,000 in taxpayer money for the $1.44 million project.
This gut wrenching poem tells a true story.
The Michigan Energy-Michigan Jobs (MEMJ) Proposal 3 - its 25 by 25 gambit - would have forced Michigan taxpayers and ratepayers to produce 25 percent of the Wolverine State's electricity via expensive, unreliable, parasitic wind and solar projects by 2025.
Ken Sikkema, a Public Sector Consultant and former state lawmaker, said generating electricity from wind simply won't work in the state.
"It will cost $12 billion to generate 25 percent of the state's electricity using wind turbines by 2025."
In Michigan's Lenawee County and near the Ohio-Indiana state line, proposals to install wind turbines are attracting organized opposition. It is easy -- but unfair -- to dismiss this as an expression of classic Not In My Back Yard sentiments. If majority opinion and market forces lead to zoning ordinances that discourage developers from operating in an area, they must be respected.
The IICC has exhaustively studied the issues surrounding industrial wind turbines, advocating for regulations that will protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Lenawee County. Wind developers have advocated for regulations that protect their profits and shareholders. Does the IICC tell a scary story? Yes it does, because sometimes the truth is scary.
Because wind energy advocates have done a terrific job selling industrial wind as an abundant source of "clean" energy, many environmentally sensitive people support it. But proponents have produced no factual data to substantiate their claim, because it doesn't exist.
Michigan's elected representatives in Washington should press the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to take a hard look at a plan to beef up electric power lines throughout the Midwest. Without some timely federal intervention, Michigan power customers could end up paying an unfair share of the bill.
U.S. Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee has introduced legislation that would require FERC to make sure the cost of regulations it approves are related to the benefits that would accrue to the states or regions on which they are imposed.
Unfortunately, while the price tag and impact are a lot less than the biomass plant, so is the expected return.
While the city-owned utility had hoped to build two or even three biomass plants and produce as much as 20 percent of the base load power the utility needs, the impact of solar will be much, much less.
[The report] skips over the setback requirements for the industrial turbines, an issue that has been a major point of contention. Those 450 foot industrial turbines have to be 1,400 feet from your house, but only 600 feet from your property line. That means this could lead to up to 800 feet of your property being unusable and unsafe for you, essentially being stolen.
Tri-Cities residents were treated to a slick presentation by Scandia Wind LLC wind farm developers at the Grand Haven High School Performing Arts Center Tuesday night. Developers implored area residents to make decisions based on "facts, not fear." Trouble is, Scandia's presentation was infested with non-facts.
More than any other state, Michiganders identify with the Great Lakes. They are essential to the state's tourism industry and provide extensive recreational opportunities ...It seems hard to believe that anyone would want to put the Great Lakes at risk for the unproven development of off-shore wind energy.
Having learned nothing from Cape Wind's tortuous nine-year battle to locate a wind farm off Cape Cod, the state of Michigan is encouraging wind farms in the Great Lakes. ...But silly pols who insist Michigan factories can be run on wind are about to plunge its lakeshore residents into a bitter and prolonged public battle.
The Lake Michigan P.O.W.E.R. (Protect Our Water, Economy and Resources) Coalition would like to remind readers about some critical facts regarding offshore wind development and the company aggressively pursuing our shoreline that are important to understand before taking a stance one way or another or rushing into any significant development in one of our greatest natural treasures.
Now a new community-level movement is arising in Michigan and across the Great Lakes region. This time, established green groups may be separating themselves from it. As Michigan and other state and provincial agencies move to authorize wind farms in the Great Lakes, enviros outside the affected communities are not likely to join offshore wind opponents in any significant numbers.
My grandmother, Agnes, lived in Monterey Township at the turn of the 20th century. Her favorite saying was, “a place for everything and everything in its place.” What do you think she would say of the placement of gigantic wind turbines on the hillsides and in the fields of her beautiful Monterey? ...would she say, “Go for it. It’s progress and it is for the good of the country?” I don't believe that she would.
Many people seem enthralled about the “clean green” wind farm proposed for Lake Michigan four miles out from Pentwater.
But if you’ve ever sailed the lake and if you ever worked in a big power plant — and I have done both — you see several dirty little devils in the details. Plus that, an Internet search shows wind power may not be all that clean. But it certainly looks very, very green — at least to the developers, people eager to rake in the boodle of big federal grants and subsidies and then get out of Dodge — or Pentwater.
In the words of Jeff Holyfield, spokesperson for Consumers Energy, "Last year, the wind blew ice floes onshore with such force that a half-dozen homes were crushed on the shore of Lake Michigan ... protection of turbine towers from such pressure and stress is a major concern."
It's time for our representatives, both state and federal, to take a serious look at the possible health effects of wind turbines. It's possible reported problems are psychological, but we will not know conclusively until a reliable test is available.
Yes, this will cost a lot of money, but it will be nothing compared to the price we will pay if we erect hundreds of turbines in the Upper Thumb and then find proof of a problem.