Wind power advocates balance costs vs. benefits

Imad Mahawili came back earlier this week from Gov. Jennifer Granholm's signing ceremony for Michigan's latest energy initiative with renewed enthusiasm for alternative energy.

Now, with a state mandate for 10 percent renewable energy generation by 2015, Grand Valley State University's Michigan and Renewable Energy Center in Muskegon could play a key role in achieving that goal.

First on everyone's list of energy alternatives in Michigan is wind-generated electricity. Mahawili has been in the forefront of pushing for research of locating wind turbines on Lake Michigan, but views the economic difficulties of offshore wind-powered generation realistically.

Mahawili -- MAREC's executive director since it was founded in 2003 -- praised the new Michigan energy policies, legislation that he has been promoting for several years.

"I'm pleased that the governor was finally able to sign it ... it's a critical beginning for our state," Mahawili said of the new "renewable portfolio standards" approved after months of wrangling in the Michigan Legislature. "This is a different day in Michigan than the day before she signed it."

But the chemical engineer did some quick mathematical calculations. This Great Lakes wind dream is not going to be easy to achieve and it certainly won't be cheap.

Under current electricity pricing in the state and the current rules of the Michigan Public Service Commission, a kilowatt produced by wind turbines on Lake Michigan costs about four and a half times more than energy from a modern coal-fired plant, the researcher and inventor said.

And that takes for granted that public and legislative support for lake-based turbines would allow their eventual development. Environmental and shipping concerns about locating large numbers of turbines on Lake Michigan will likely create a lively debate.

"Alternative energy is expensive right now and not competitive with coal," Mahawili said. "The (new renewable energy mandates) will help with getting wind in line with coal."

What will make wind, solar or bio-gas-generated electricity more competitive with coal is that traditional fossil-fuel energy will cost more in the future. Both major presidential candidates have talked about supporting either a "cap-and-trade" system of limiting greenhouse gas emissions or a "carbon tax" -- either of which will increase the cost of electricity produced from coal or natural gas.

Mahawili still holds out hope that wind power will be the clean energy of Michigan's future -- producing electricity and spurring the manufacture and development of the huge turbines. His interest in exploring wind energy development on Lake Michigan was bolstered earlier this month with the release of "Michigan Offshore Wind Potential" from the Land Policy Institute of Michigan State University.

The research by Land Policy Institute Director Soji Adelaja and researcher Charles McKeown concludes that there is 321.9 gigawatts of wind power potential that Michigan has within its surface areas of the Great Lakes.

As a point of reference, the B.C. Cobb coal-powered generating plant in Muskegon has the potential of producing 320 megawatts, or 0.32 gigawatts. Michigan's Great Lakes wind potential is one-thousand times greater than the Cobb plant.

"The lake is really remarkable," Mahawili said, pointing to the wind potential on the water, where winds are on average much stronger than the nearby land. Previous studies have shown Michigan has 16.5 gigawatts of land-based wind power potential; the state is the 14th windiest in the United States when just considering the land, the MSU researchers report.

The MSU study is based on a new 2008 AWS Truewind map for the Great Lakes created by an Albany, N.Y. wind-mapping consulting firm.

Mahawili's calculations of realistic wind generation on Michigan's portion of the Great Lakes are based on using only 10 percent of the total potential, or 30 gigawatts. The entire Michigan electrical generating potential today is equal to 30 gigawatts, the MSU study shows.

Using 2-megawatt wind turbines, it would take 15,000 wind turbines to produce such a potential. Mahawili's calculations realistically looked at building only 20 percent of those turbines, or 3,000.

At a current installed cost of $5 million per turbine, that would be a $15 billion investment for the state of Michigan, its utilities and electrical customers, according to Mahawili. As a comparison, 900 of those turbines would produce 520 megawatts of potential power at a cost of $4.5 billion compared to a 500-megawatt coal plant that would cost about $1 billion, Mahawili said.

"If you want to make such a drastic change, where's that money coming from ... where's our T. Boone Pickens?" Mahawili asked, referring to the billionaire oilman who plans a $1.2 trillion investment to provide 20 percent of the nation's electricity on wind farms from Texas to North Dakota.

And windpower has the distinctive drawback of producing only when the wind blows. Out on Lake Michigan, a typical wind turbine would produce about 30 percent of the power rating of the unit, Mahawili estimates. Wind power needs to have standby or "baseload" backup power available when winds are not blowing. Some in the energy industry suggest the backup should come from new nuclear power plants.

At the current rate of 7 cents per kilowatt hour of electricity, that $15 billion wind turbine investment would only produce $300 million worth of electricity, Mahawili calculates. However, there would be no cost beyond turbine maintenance; the wind is free and coal is only going to get more expensive in future years, Mahawili pointed out.

"Renewable energy is just more expensive right now than coal," Mahawili said. "But there are no (greenhouse gas) emissions and that can be a great advantage going into the future. It all depends on what the will of the people will be."