Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Offshore Wind in Illinois Waters of Lake Michigan: The Path Forward

2012 was a big year for offshore wind in Illinois.  While there are no wind turbines in the Illinois waters of Lake Michigan, the concept of installing turbines in Lake Michigan was discussed and debated. This conversation then became a report by the Lake Michigan Offshore Wind Energy Advisory Council (“Council”). The Council, chaired by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, convened a series of meetings over the ensuing 11 months to explore the potential for wind power installations in Lake Michigan.  Issues discussed by the Council included identifying areas suitable for offshore wind installations, what lessons can Illinois learn from other domestic or foreign offshore wind projects, and how the state should be compensated for offshore wind turbine installations.  In June 2012 the Council issued a report outlining a permitting process for the installation of offshore wind turbines and identifying turbine siting factors.  The report is entitled the Lake Michigan Offshore Wind Energy Report and a copy can be found at http://www.dnr.illinois.gov/councils/LMOWEAC/Documents/LMOWEFinalReport62012.pdf.

Illinois identified many of the same factors common to other jurisdictions considering the possibility of siting wind turbines.  Factors like the possibility of adverse impacts to bird and bat species, fish or other aquatic species, scenic views and commercial shipping and recreational boating were all discussed and included in the final Report.  The Council found that several comprehensive studies of avian impacts from European offshore wind installations provided a more nuanced picture of avian interactions with wind turbines than previously understood.  In many cases individual avian species will exhibit completely different behaviors when faced with a wind turbine array.  Some species will fly between turbines, some above or around turbines, and others may avoid areas altogether.  Every type of impact will need to be considered if wind turbines are proposed for installation in the Illinois waters of Lake Michigan.  What some Council members may have found surprising was the level of winter-time use of offshore areas of Lake Michigan by waterfowl. 

Illinois has experienced significant levels of investment in land-based wind turbines.  According to the American Wind Energy Association Illinois is ranked 4th in comparison to other states in current generating capacity of installed wind turbines.  Only California, Texas and Iowa have seen greater levels of wind turbine installation.  While no turbines have yet been installed in Lake Michigan, the southern end of Lake Michigan may be an attractive location for offshore wind siting in the future because of the proximity of Chicago, northwest Indiana and surrounding load centers.  As Illinois and other jurisdictions continue to move towards creation of offshore wind generating capacity, efforts like the Lake Michigan Offshore Wind Energy Report will be important steps in ensuring the correct balance between economic development, domestic energy production and the protection of human values and the environment.

Todd Rettig

Acting Director
Office of Realty and Environmental Planning
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
New Co-chair of the GLWC Offshore Workgroup

Monday, November 19, 2012

Offshore Wind: The Sum of its Parts & People

Offshore wind advocates cite emissions reduction, water quality, diversity of energy portfolio, and economic development as all part of the rationale for developing in U.S. waters. While much of the rationale is straightforward, I see a weakness in the argument used to support the economic development angle. As industry representatives, we must ask ourselves if we are fully delivering a comprehensive, yet easy-to-understand argument for economic development.


Consider this. “The electrical and grid infrastructure, foundations and support structures, offshore logistics and installation, and O&M represent the highest percentage of the total project cost, ranging from 57% to 71%” (NREL 2010). Based on this statement, it’s clear the scope of services involved in offshore wind is much broader than the turbine, certainly broader than most people tend to think about. Better yet, are we doing our best to make it easy for them to think about it more broadly?

People understand the connection between manufacturing and jobs at a high level. They recognize it requires a labor force to create the wind turbine components and then to install and maintain them. All-in-all, the term “supply chain” isn’t a foreign language. But the offshore wind supply chain isn’t just the “sum of its parts.” The turbine and its thousands of tangible components is only a portion of the opportunity. What about the cables, vessels, people, port infrastructure, research, etc…?  The Europeans use the term “value chain” to acknowledge the other term’s shortcoming.

Using the “value chain” terminology allows for the full spectrum of goods and services to be considered as the cost-benefit matrix is developed. After all, when all of these are factored into the cost of a project, do we want to short-change ourselves by using a generic term like supply-chain? I’d venture to say, not at offshore wind’s current cost-per-kilowatt hour.

One full-service project management firm called PMSS is acutely aware of how important it is to communicate this. While they do it to fully detail their “line card” as a service provider, it clearly spells out the scope of the offshore wind value chain. Accordingly, PMSS has a publication called “The Life of an Offshore Wind Farm” which fully describes and delineates the cradle-to-grave project activities undertaken while also listing corresponding job titles for each task.

Another favorite resource to better communicate the value chain was published by the United Kingdom’s Crown Estate, “Your Career in Offshore Wind Energy.”  The document has visualizations of offshore wind’s lifecycle and interviews with professionals like a hydrographic surveyor. For reference, the Crown Estate manages the U.K. government’s property portfolio which includes the zone leases for offshore projects.

From wind assessment and permitting to decommissioning, it should come as no surprise Europe is currently employing over 45,000 people directly in offshore wind; up to 134,000 by 2020. The value-chain is long and the scale is tremendous. As stewards of the impending offshore wind industry in the United States, I propose we instill this term among stakeholders and policy makers in order to strengthen the argument and properly acknowledge the spectrum of economic and employment opportunities. 

Donny Davis


Research & Communications Manager

Lake Erie Energy Development Corporation (LEEDCo) 

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Wildlife for future generations


While visiting my parents this past weekend my dad reminded me about my interest in wildlife.  He recalled an incident from about 25 years ago when my older brother and I captured a “dead” bat in the barn with one of our butterfly nets.  We were so excited we took it inside the house to show him.  We found dad napping and notified him of our catch.  He sleepily told us not to bring butterflies into the house and I excitedly informed him that it wasn’t a butterfly—it was a bat!  Well, Dad kind of shrieked which woke up the “dead” bat, which started flapping in the net.  The bat flapping in the net scared my brother who promptly dropped the net onto Dad’s chest.  Dad flipped off the couch, ran out the door, and somehow flung the bat out of the net like a slingshot.  My brother and I spent the next two hours learning about what was and was not appropriate to play with or bring in the house.

As we were reminiscing about the bat adventures of our old farmhouse he stated that it was not as funny as I make it sound.  He smiled and pointed to my two young boys who were drawing on my car with sidewalk chalk and then broke into laughter as I tried to explain to my kids what they can and cannot draw on.  Afterwards, he just smiled to me and said he cannot wait to hear about what my kids bring into my house.

I thought about this statement during the drive home on Sunday night.  I currently live in an old farmhouse, similar to the one I lived in when I was a kid.  I know it has some bats in the attic, and there were definitely some in the barn and outbuildings because I swept out the guano.  But in five years when my kids are out exploring the farm like I used to, will there be bats in those buildings for them to discover?

In Pennsylvania, bat species are encountering several direct threats.  White nosed syndrome has devastated residential hibernating bats in Pennsylvania.  White nosed syndrome was first documented in New York during the winter of 2006-2007 and has now been documented in 19 states and four Canadian provinces.  It was first detected in Pennsylvania in 2008.    Hibernacula surveys by the Pennsylvania Game Commission revealed a 98 to 99 percent decline in little brown, tri-colored, and Northern long-eared bats.  Before white nosed syndrome, little brown bats were one of the most commonly observed bats in Pennsylvania.

Wind energy development is another threat to bat species.  Unlike many other development projects such as power lines or pipelines which have initial wildlife impacts, wind turbines have large moving blades that can impact wildlife for the life of the project.  In 2007, the Pennsylvania Game Commission created the Wind Energy Voluntary Cooperative Agreement.  This is an agreement between the Game Commission, which has jurisdiction over Pennsylvania birds and mammals, and wind energy developers to study the effects of wind energy on wildlife and develop ways to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for negative impacts.  Data collected via the Voluntary Cooperative Agreement shows an average mortality of 25 bats per turbine per year for wind sites in Pennsylvania.  There are currently over 500 turbines in operation in Pennsylvania which means over 12,500 bats are killed by wind turbines in Pennsylvania each year.  With more wind farms planned in Pennsylvania, the yearly bat mortality will continue to increase unless some minimization methods are implemented.  Three quarters of the bats killed in Pennsylvania are migratory tree bats such as the hoary, eastern red, and silver-haired bats.  These bats migrate south through Pennsylvania in the fall and north through Pennsylvania again in the spring.  Meaning that these bats essentially run a gauntlet of wind farms up and down through Appalachia.  Since bats are relatively long lived and have low reproduction rates, generally one young per year, mortality from wind farms could have serious implications on these migratory bat populations. 

There are other threats that bats face.  Bats can be killed by automobiles driving on roadways.  Bats can be killed by feral pets such as cats.  Bats can be killed by homeowners when they inadvertently seal them in because people do not want bats in the attic.  There are also indirect threats such as habitat loss and pesticide use.  Residential and industrial development threatens historical foraging and roosting sites.   Increased pesticide use reduces potential prey for bats.  So not only is their original foraging area no longer suitable, but their food was also removed.  Recreational activities such as caving can disturb bats while hibernating.  Dumping trash into caves and mines can close entrances used by bats, eliminating suitable hibernacula. 

Bats appear to be facing a stacked deck.  Hopefully, as a society, we can recognize the implications our actions have on wildlife, and avoid and minimize these impacts for the benefit of all wildlife.  While there are many threats to bats, we should identify the major threats to bats, such as white nosed syndrome, and develop ways to minimize the spread of this disease while protecting the species most at risk.  For direct threats such as wind energy, we should identify ways to avoid potential impacts and minimize the existing impacts through adjusting cut-in speeds, deterrents, or other methods.  We should be aware of the various impacts on bat species and avoid and minimize them to the greatest extent possible.

Maybe this will allow my kids the great experience of watching their mother screaming hysterically at the dinner table because a wayward bat emerged via the kitchen instead of exiting the attic through the eaves. 

John Taucher

WIldlife Biologist/Wind Energy Project Coordinator
Pennsylvania Game Commission

Friday, September 28, 2012

Beyond Coal: advancing a vision of clean energy for the Great Lakes


After spending the past couple of days at the Great Lakes Wind Collaborative annual meeting, I remain very optimistic about the future of wind in the Great Lakes region.   Participants in this year’s meeting painted a clear picture: the development of clean, renewable wind power—both onshore and offshore—brings incredible benefits to our region and is essential to the long term health of both our economy and our environment. 

Our states are already experiencing job growth, community renewal and affordable energy from on-shore wind development.   And if we invest in the development of an offshore wind industry here, to capitalize on the outstanding wind resource that exists in close proximity to major load centers, we could generate tens of thousands of new jobs in manufacturing, construction, and long term operations and maintenance.

But economic development aside, we cannot afford to wait.  We must move quickly to dramatically increase our reliance on clean, renewable, home-grown energy sources.  Our region currently gets three-quarters of its electricity from coal, which is all too often burned in old, inefficient power plants with limited or no modern pollution controls.  Our reliance on coal is leaving us with a legacy of mercury-contaminated lakes, asthma-inducing bad-air days, toxic ash spills and—worst of all—a rapidly changing climate that is already wreaking havoc on communities and ecosystems around the world.

A flood of inexpensive natural gas is challenging the dominance of coal.  But while burning natural gas emits less pollution than coal, its extraction can cause major environmental problems and it is not a long-term solution.  Eventually, the price will go up as supplies go down.  Like all fossil fuels, it is a limited resource.

Wind, on the other hand, is not.  It offers an unlimited supply of local clean energy and the potential to renew our cities and manufacturing centers across the region.  There is more than enough on-shore and offshore wind capacity to power our entire region and then some.  And as I learned at the Great Lakes Wind Collaborative meeting, it is aggressive but possible to generate as much as 80 percent of our power from renewable energy sources, while maintaining the integrity of the grid (for more information check out the report from NREL).

One key to realizing those benefits is to develop the resource appropriately, siting wind farms in a way that minimizes environmental and social impacts and that is acceptable to local communities.  I am honored to be working with the Collaborative’s Siting and Mapping workgroup to develop a regional, GIS-based siting tool that will help us more effectively engage local communities and make smart, sustainable decisions on the siting of onshore and offshore wind farms.  We invite all interested parties to join us in developing a tool that will be useful to and used by key stakeholders across the region.

In addition, we must determine how to spread the cost and the risk of launching a new industry in order to bring offshore wind to the Great Lakes.  I urge the Collaborative to engage on this challenging question.  There are tremendous benefits of building an offshore industry here, but it will not happen unless the early costs associated with being the “first mover” are shared regionally or even nationally. 
The Collaborative should seriously investigate and debate the options for spreading the costs, and we should be creative and think big.  While the obstacles may seem large, we must consider innovative options such as a renewable energy power authority or regional integrated resource planning in order to achieve a meaningful shift toward a clean energy future in this region. 

The potential benefits of this vision are huge and the cost of doing nothing is too high.   I want to leave a better world to my boys—one that includes clean air, clean water and a strong economic future.  Getting off of coal and developing a more sustainable clean energy future is a key part of developing that legacy.  Let’s work together to figure out how to make that vision a reality, in a way that works for the region’s communities, businesses, industries, utilities and others. 

We are all in this together and I believe that, together, we can solve this problem and address this challenge—I am an optimist.

Emily Green

Great Lakes Program Director
Sierra Club

Friday, July 20, 2012



A Story of Three Figures

The wind energy world seems to be dominated by discussions of the Production Tax Credit (PTC), and one cannot help but be concerned about how the uncertainty over the future of this policy is resulting in job losses across our country and especially in the Great Lakes region. But it may be helpful to take a broader look at the wind industry and recently released analyses that provide us with a few sunbeams in the long-range forecast: the Renewable Energy Futures Study, A Systematic Review and Harmonization of Life Cycle GHG Emission Estimates for Electricity Generation Technologies, and two analyses that examine the future of U.S. natural gas markets. It is important to note that most of these works were funded by U.S. Energy Department, which also helps support the Great Lakes Wind Collaborative.
Although each analysis is significant, in combination these three studies paint a picture that I think everyone in the wind industry should remember as we look to a very uncertain next few years, both in the wind industry and the energy industry as a whole.
The Renewable Energy Futures Study (http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/re_futures/) examines the electrical energy market until 2050 and is the most comprehensive and complete projection of how our electric market sector could look if renewables provided a larger percentage of the nation’s electrical energy needs. The study also includes a robust assessment of the nation’s grid infrastructure and considers only technologies that are available today, so it does not include any assumptions of huge efficiency improvements that may never be realized. The report clearly indicates that a future in which more than 80% of the nation’s electrical energy comes from renewables (including wind, solar, hydro, and bio-power) is very possible, from technical and economic standpoints. In this analysis, wind provides the largest portion of the nation’s energy portfolio expansion (almost 450 gigawatts by 2050), while fast-acting natural gas plants provide much of the stability and power back-up. The website for the study (provided above) portrays not only how the power system changes over time but also the expected flow of power across the nation each year until 2050.
The breakthrough work on the Harmonization of Life Cycle GHG Emission Estimates for Electricity Generation Technologies study examines more than 2,000 analyses of carbon emissions of greenhouse gasses from across the electric sector (http://en.openei.org/apps/LCA/) and provides an international consensus of the emissions of different electrical energy technologies. It should be no surprise to anyone that wind is one of the lowest lifecycle emitters of greenhouse gasses, slightly higher than hydropower and ocean energy technologies and lower than all of the other renewables and nuclear. On the website, turn off the markers on the interactive chart for coal and natural gas to see the differences among all technologies.
The last analysis comes from a series of reports discussed at the 2012 Wind Powering America All States Summit and highlights the understanding that the convergence where natural gas overtakes coal as the prime producer of electric power in the U.S. is near, if not already passed (some say it happened last month). With natural gas becoming the new dominant provider of electrical energy, the nation becomes much more dependent on a fuel source that is tied to international pricing and has historically demonstrated price volatility due to a variety of market pressures. In presentations by Mark Bolinger of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Jeffrey Logan of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, we see that the cost of natural gas in the near future ranges greatly. Bolinger’s figures (soon to be released as part of the 2011 Wind Technologies Market Report) show the cost of energy from natural gas within the next 5 years ranging from below $40 per megawatt-hour to more than $100 per megawatt-hour. This clearly lies in a range where wind, even without the PTC, can play a strong hedge against potential market fluctuations. Logan’s upcoming report also shows that without the PTC, wind at good sites is economic when compared to natural gas at within the $5 to $6 per MMBtu range. This is well within the range of predicted natural gas prices given the market uncertainties, including expected continuing retiring of coal plants, liquefied natural gas export infrastructure development, expanded industrial usage, and expanding use of natural gas as a transportation fuel.
Everyone who has worked in the wind industry for at least the past 5 years knows that the energy industries can be turbulent from year to year. To many energy industry workers facing a potential pink slip, whether a coal miner in Pennsylvania or a manufacturer of roller bearings for wind turbines in Michigan, my words will ring with a decidedly hollow tone, but I have to say that the long-term prospects for the wind industry are very bright. The results of these studies -- wind can play a strong role in any renewable energy electricity future, wind technologies are one of the best energy options to address the ongoing climate crisis, and the truly critical need to hedge the industry’s headlong rush into a power sector dominated by natural gas -- add to the long list of wind energy’s positive attributes. For the long term, the wind industry is one of the few in which success is as guaranteed as the power industry currently allows.

Ian Baring-Gould
National Technical Director
Wind Powering America
National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Tuesday, July 3, 2012


Welcoming the new U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Voluntary Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines:

By Amanda Sweetman, Sea Grant Fellow
Great Lakes Commission

Prior to joining the Great Lakes Commission as the 2012-2013 Sea Grant-Great Lakes Commission Fellow, my thoughts on wind power revolved (pun intended) around my awe of the size and majesty of the turbines. Since taking the position however, I’ve been working hard to get up to speed (another pun) on the current state of wind power in the U.S., and more specifically on the role of the Great Lakes Wind Collaborative in the development of wind power in the Great Lakes region. One of the first tasks I was given was to educate myself on the ins and outs of the new U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Voluntary Land-based Wind Energy Guidelines: what are they, how will they impact wind energy development, and how will they be implemented? Below I attempt to answer these questions:

What are the USFWS Guidelines? The Guidelines are a voluntary, tier-based scientific process for “addressing wildlife conservation concerns at all stages of land-based wind energy development” (USFWS). More specifically these guidelines are designed to limit impacts on species of concern.  Species of concern are those that that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are responsible for protecting as part of the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Although these guidelines are voluntary, the Service has said that a developer’s adherence to the process will reduce, not eliminate, the likelihood of legal action if an incidental take of a species of concern occurs.

The tiers are laid out in an easily understood, logical manner that, hopefully, will lead to greater protections for species of concern in the development of wind farms. Each tier is designed to build off the previous one and collect information in increasing detail to assess and evaluate potential risks to species of concern and their habitats. (See the full document for more information.)

Tier 1: Preliminary site evaluation

Tier 2: Site characterization

Tier 3: Field studies and impact prediction

Tier 4: Post construction studies to estimate impacts

Tier 5: Other post-construction studies and research


According to the Guidelines, the most important part of this process is to communicate early and often with the Service. In the document, the Service promises quick turnaround (no more than 60 days) of all communications.

How will they impact wind development? The Guidelines may increase development time due to the iterative process and communication with the Service. However, I believe they will encourage environmental stewardship, promote the ideas of adaptive management, and create a nationwide database with standardized data. The Guidelines were also developed by a wide range of stakeholders including people from federal, state, tribal, non-profit, and business organizations. Hopefully, the collaborative spirit of the document will continue as the number of wind farms increase and we, as a nation, come to terms with the associated impacts of these developments.

Let’s not forget the assurances the Services has made about the reduced likelihood of legal prosecution in case of an incidental take of a species of concern! The Guidelines are akin to looking both ways before crossing the street. Following them is no guarantee that you’ll be safe, but it’s a lot better than just stepping off the curb.

How will the Guidelines be implemented? The need for contact with the Service early and often suggests the need for regional offices of the Service to have an understanding of the Guidelines and an intimate knowledge of the areas in which there are species of concern. It will also take time and training for Service staff and wind developers to fully understand how to follow the Guidelines. The Guidelines promise the “Service will make every effort to offer an in-depth course [on the implementation of the Guidelines] within six months of the final Guidelines being published” (USFWS). However, it is unclear who will be invited to this course, how often the course will be held, and who will be doing the training.

My thinking is that the Service could and should take advantage of existing groups, such as the Great Lakes Wind Collaborative (GLWC), to help with the implementation of the Guidelines. The GLWC has a broad network with more than 700 stakeholders across the binational Great Lakes region and is led by a multi-stakeholder Steering Committee. The GLWC can facilitate integration of the Guidelines with state and local rules and ordinances to reduce redundancy and promote the environmentally-conscious growth of the wind industry in the Great Lakes. 

Concluding Thoughts: Overall, I find the Guidelines a positive, encouraging tool for the responsible development of wind power in this country. As a scientist, I am encouraged by the scientific approach these guidelines take as well as the inclusion of well thought-out best management practices at the end of the document. Recommendations about using native seed for replanting struck particularly close to home due to my past research on native plant restoration.

Personally, the voluntary nature of the Guidelines is a little troubling. There are laws that dictate when individuals can and cannot cross the street. So, why is it that when industry wants to develop wind farms that the Service can only take action after a negative outcome? At which point the damage may already have been done. Also, I would like to see more proactive mechanisms for avoiding impacts on wildlife initiated by government agencies.  One possibility is to provide incentives for redeveloping brownfields and old industrial areas. Not only would this reduce impacts on wildlife and green areas, but it would also bring energy production closer to areas of energy use.

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Ian and I

By Terry Yonker
Immediate Past Co-Chair, Great Lakes Wind Collaborative

Ian and I sat together, each observing the same glacial scene and coming to two separate conclusions:  climate change is a hoax and climate change is a reality.  We were amongst many other scientists and non scientists who traveled together to Antarctica in January on the Akademik Sergei Vovolov, a Russian Academy of Sciences research vessel.  Ian from Ontario and I from New York both observed calving glaciers and massive icebergs, expansive penguin and seabird colonies, breeching whales and predatory sea mammals, and a continent that is changing almost imperceptibly, but changing nevertheless.  Sea ice extent, krill populations that serve as the base of the Antarctic food chain, and glacial mass are all decreasing.  For those of us who were involved in research on Antarctica during the 1960’s, the changes are profound. Although what is happening in Antarctica parallels changes that are occurring here in the Great Lakes, the impacts of global warming on the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem climate differ in several major respects.

Rather than rising oceans, most scientists agree that water levels in the Great Lakes will decline, due to rising temperatures, increased evaporation, decreased ice cover, and shifts in the timing and amount of annual precipitation.  The implications of water level changes alone will impact hydroelectric power production, shipping tonnage through the St. Lawrence Seaway, flow over the Niagara Falls, and the biological productivity of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem.  Most impacts are expected to be negative.

Perhaps Ian and I had different perceptions of what we saw in Antarctica, but the reality is we must address changes in climate that are already occurring here at home.  What we do here to address the root causes of global warming will benefit the entire planet.  The future wellbeing of the penguins of Antarctica may depend on what we can accomplish a hemisphere away.

The 42 million people of the binational Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem are responsible for up to 15% of the world’s production of carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas contributing to global warming and climate change.  And most of the CO2 increase comes from energy production, heating, and transportation that support a two trillion dollar economy, the world’s fourth largest behind the United States, China, and Japan.

Carbon dioxide emissions in the Great Lakes are being reduced by the introduction of new sources of renewable energy (wind and solar) and the reduction in the use of coal to produce electricity.  Ontario will shut down all its coal generators by 2014.  Three coal plants in western New York are likely to be mothballed.

The potential of wind power in the Great Lakes is ten times the 100 gigawatts of electricity that are required to maintain our regional economy and meet the needs of our citizens.  Electricity generated by wind turbines within a geographically diverse supergrid can replace all coal and natural gas generated baseload capacity when balanced by hydroelectric and pumped hydroelectric capacity.  The Niagara region of New York and Ontario, the western Great Lakes, and Quebec are blessed with renewable hydroelectric and pumped hydroelectric generating capacity.  The Great Lakes could and should serve as the energy hub and nerve center of a supergrid that serves the entire Great Lakes region and the Eastern Interconnect.

The Great Lakes Wind Collaborative has to date avoided a full blown debate about the important link between climate change in the Great Lakes and the need to transition to a renewable energy economy.  There is some underlying view that to discuss the shift to renewables and global warming in the same breath is somehow the kiss of death for the wind industry.  Wherever I have lectured on the subject of climate change in the Great Lakes, I have emphatically made the link and it has resonated with my audiences, regardless of their backgrounds.  There are the Ians who, whatever their motives or beliefs, will try to make the case that both renewable energy development and global warming mitigation are not economically feasible, that wind power cannot provide baseload capacity, and that humans have no role in causing global warming and climate change.  I think the stakeholders of the Great Lakes Wind Collaborative understand the issues quite differently.  We need to separate myth from reality.  If we do that in assertive and positive ways, the case for mitigation of global warming and the deployment of wind power and other renewables is not a difficult case to make.

Terry L. Yonker, Immediate Past Co-chair, Great Lakes Wind Collaborative

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Energy, Policy and Markets

By Charles McKeown
Office of the Hannah Professor in Land Policy, Agriculture, Food, and Resource Economics
Michigan State University

Electricity markets are strange things. In fact, they often don’t resemble markets much at all. The generation, transmission and delivery of electricity in the U.S. are highly regulated and subject to significant oversight from a true alphabet soup of agencies including: the federal Energy regulatory Commission (FERC), the Independent System Operators (ISO’s), state Public Service Commissions (PSC’s), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), state environmental agencies (DNR’s, DEQ’s etc.) and the list goes on…. 
Why is all this government in a market? It is due to the fact that, to a large extent, the success of the U.S. economy is predicated on reliable, available, and inexpensive electricity. These goals are balanced against the climate crisis, the desire to reduce harmful emissions such as mercury (coal fired power plants are far and away the greatest source), sulfur oxides, nitrous oxides and other harmful emissions, the creation of economic development opportunities, and providing for U.S. energy security, and by extension, national security. When taken as a whole, understanding energy “markets” is akin to untying a Gordian Knot. None of it is simple, and anyone who says that is likely selling something. 
Electricity choices are long term (30 years or more for most baseload power plants) and expensive, regardless of the generation technology. These are the reasons that energy policy plays a key role in electricity technology development and deployment. The policy choices we make now have very lasting effects. Up until now, we have been largely reliant on fossil fuels to spin turbines to generate electricity. While nuclear and renewables are in the mix, coal is king, and energy policy has evolved to support the current mix of generation sources in the portfolio. 
Coal has largely powered the last 100 years of economic development in the U.S; however, newer imperatives have entered the energy policy arena, and our choices now need to be balanced against the next 100 years. The impending climate crisis and the emissions of carbon and other pollutants attendant to current generation technologies have spurred renewables to the forefront of the policy debate. That isn’t to say that current technologies won’t be part of the portfolio; they will be, and indeed, must be as there is no “silver Bullet” solution to our generation needs, but it does beg the need for low carbon, low cost energy sources like wind. Here is where policy becomes a vehicle for moving toward a more secure and sustainable energy portfolio; examples of such policy include Renewable Energy Standards, Feed in Tariffs, production incentives, and investment in technology R&D. 
The renewable energy policy front has been quiet as of late. With the recent high profile bankruptcy of Solyndra, the Keystone Pipeline decision, the current climate in Washington and a presidential race, the energy policy debate in the U.S. is at a low ebb. There has been a general acceptance that this congress will not be amenable to wind or other renewable energy legislation, and little activity has been observed on Capitol Hill. That seems to be changing.
·         On March 1st the Senator Jeff Bingaman D-MN introduced the Clean Energy Standard Act of 2012. The bill calls for 80 percent of electricity in the US to come from low carbon sources by 2035. The technologies include wind, solar, biomass, nuclear, industrial co-generation (heat and power produced at the same time), coal with carbon sequestration and natural gas plants (partial credit).
·         Senator Debbie Stabenow, (D-Mich.), introduced an amendment to the transportation bill that would have extended the Production tax Credit for renewable energy - including wind power - for one year in addition to extending the popular grant in lieu of tax credit program – this was voted down. However two days later another a two year extension was proposed in the Senate by a bipartisan group including Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Scott Brown (R-Mass.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Dean Heller (R-Nev.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.). Also in the US House, a bill seeking a similar extension has garnered 70 bipartisan co-sponsors.
·         At the state level, there are numerous ballot initiatives underway to increase the percentage of renewables like wind in the generation portfolio. In Michigan, for example, there is an initiative being mounted that would increase the mandate for renewable energy to 25% of the portfolio. 

While I’m not going to use this space to advocate for or against any policy, I will use it to encourage folks to understand why policy is an imperative in the energy arena. Further, it is important to understand why policy that is forward looking (remember we are stuck with our choices for at a least a generation), well informed and carefully constructed can lead to a more sustainable electricity supply, more job creation opportunities, less pollution, and lower carbon emissions simultaneously. Of course, a critical factor here is “well informed” policy, and by that I mean policy that is based on sound science, with a thorough understanding of the potential outcomes good and bad. This is where the value of organizations like the Great Lakes Wind Collaborative comes to the fore. By working with a broad base of experts, conducting high quality research and getting the knowledge generated in policy maker’s hands, the Collaborative serves a vital function. I encourage you to take the time to explore the website, read the reports, perhaps attend one of the meetings or conferences and gain a better understanding of the Collaborative and the issues that revolve around wind.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

To know more about the GLWC, visit http://www.glc.org/energy/wind/

By John Sarver,
Chair of the Michigan Wind Working Group

100% Renewable Energy in Our Future?


The majority of states have Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), mandates requiring that a certain percentage of electricity come from renewable resources by a certain date. In 2008, Michigan enacted a 10% by 2015 RPS requirement. A ballot initiative is now underway to increase the RPS to 25% by 2025. This will resume the debate about what is feasible.

A recent World Wildlife Fund (WWF) report indicates we can get to 95% renewables by 2050. The report states that an ambitious energy efficiency program, in parallel with massive development of renewable energy, will result in such a global energy system by 2050. Energy will move towards a decentralized system using local renewable sources such as wind, solar and geothermal. In addition to massive investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy, these approaches depend on the use of electric vehicles and a smart grid.

I remember a Solar Today article that described a 100% renewable future – the use of local, clean resources and elimination of the economic, security, and political problems from a dependence on foreign oil. I liked that future. Then, of course, we have climate change. Let’s assume all those scientists are wrong about climate change. So we make investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy and eliminate the risk of climate change, have cleaner air, and create millions of jobs. Sounds like a pretty good insurance policy to me.

But is this energy efficient and renewable energy future, even in 2050, realistic?  I believe the energy efficiency piece is very realistic, as demonstrated by numerous energy efficiency efforts during the past 35 years, and we have a variety of renewables (wind, solar, hydro, bioenergy, geothermal) to help us achieve a clean and renewable energy future. Wind is an abundant, cost effective resource in the Great Lakes region. Michigan has a generating capacity around 30,000 MW and studies have identified over 10,000 MW of potential onshore wind capacity and over 300,000 MW offshore capacity. The Great Lakes Wind Collaborative, Michigan Wind Working Group, and many other organizations are helping to develop the region’s wind energy resources in a responsible manner.

But will this cost too much and hurt our economy?  The WWF scenario requires an investment of 3% of GDP in energy efficiency and renewable resources, but those investments generate net savings by 2035. Recent wind energy power purchase agreements in Michigan have come in as low as $60/MWh and Michigan energy efficiency programs are costing $13/MWh. The Michigan Public Service Commission estimates that a new coal power plant would cost $133/MWh.

A clean and renewable energy future improves our environment, strengthens our economy, and reduces our dependence on imported energy, but we must start making more investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy now!


By John Sarver,
Chair of the Michigan Wind Working Group


Monday, January 30, 2012

To know more about the GLWC, visit http://www.glc.org/energy/wind/

By Youness Elhariri
Québec Intern for the Great Lakes Commission


Towards a greater role for wind energy: Insights from Québec


Since 2006 and the publication of The Government of Québec’s Energy Strategy, a major shift occurred in the traditional place taken by wind energy in Québec. According to this new orientation, wind power will not be a marginal power source anymore. Indeed, the province has now a goal of 4,000 MW of installed capacity by 2015 and all the indicators seem to confirm that this target will be reached. Knowing that the average power capacity of Québec is 38,000 MW, we are now talking about more than 10% of the province’s energy coming from wind power. We have long surpassed the 200 MW projects of the 1990s and this fast progression, in less than two decades, is obviously a step in the right direction.

In the coming years, after exceeding this symbolic cap of the 10%, the transition toward a more wind power-friendly province will be easier to make, both on the political and technical level. That’s why a lot of specialists and professors in the field of energy are putting forward the idea that Québec could reach 12,000 MW of wind power capacity by 2025.

It is true that Québec’s context cannot be transposed everywhere in North America (in terms of geographical position, available wind resources, acreage, etc.). However, it can be an interesting scenario to examine for the Great Lakes states that also have significant wind power potential.

That said, environmental issues will always be a key factor when considering bringing more wind power on the grid. However, the goal of Québec using wind to produce more than 20% of its energy by 2025 is driven by three other important factors: energetic independence and security, economic benefits and technical possibilities.

Energetic independence and security  

In 2005, a “National Assembly on Energy and Security and the Future for Québec” took place followed a year later by The Government of Québec’s Energy Strategy. The first objective of the latter is that Québec must strengthen its energy supply security. In other words, Québec wants to make sure that in the not-to-distant future, it will never depend on foreign suppliers to provide its energy.

If it is successful in accomplishing this objective, Québec will be able to avoid a supplementary source of uncertainty in terms of economic growth: energy price volatility. Indeed, being able to produce its energy on its own territory gives the Government of Québec the luxury to provide to its citizens and economy the necessary amount of power with affordable and stables prices. This energy supply security will be reached not only by increasing the hydro electrical capabilities of the province but also by the increasingly more important role of wind power and other alternative sources of energy. It is in that mind set that Québec decided to give Hydro-Québec (Youness, put in parentheses here a short clause about what Hydro Quebec is, such as the province’s main energy supplier or something like that) the mandate to produce wind power more widely.

Economic benefits     

The other reason explaining this increased importance of wind power to Québec is its economic benefits. According to the Québec Energy Strategy 2005-2015, published by the Government of Québec, reaching 4,000 MW of wind power capacity by 2015 will generate investments of 4.9 billion in Canadian dollars. Additionally, special requirements calling for locally produced Québec content are being implemented. In fact, a minimum of 60% of the content necessary for the production of 4,000 MW of wind power must be made in Québec. Further, special attention is given to two specific regions: the Gaspésie-Iles-de-la-Madeline region and Matane, two distant areas of the province that face problems of depopulation, exodus of the youth, unemployment, and other economic issues. For these two communities, the wind industry is more than welcome. Since it is there that most of the wind farms will be established, it is necessary to involve their people in the entire process, including employment in the supply chain, rather than simply accepting the wind farms on their landscape. Also, this new industry creates an environment favorable for developing local knowledge, expertise and a market niche for wind turbine companies, even becoming competitive at the international level. Case in point, the newspaper La Presse published an article this past fall about Eocycle Technologies, a small enterprise from Gaspésie that has manufactured wind turbines since year 2003. Last year, Eocycle Technologies exported its first wind turbine to Ohio. The firm now plans to build 20 turbines per year until 2015, then 100 turbines per year thereafater, all aimed at the North American market.

This forecasted growth is really encouraging for Québec’s economy, in particular for the two regions of Matane and Gaspésie-Iles-de-la-Madeline. It is even brighter if we consider the planned progression from 4,000 MW in 2015 to 12,000 MW in 2025. Following this path will require approximately $25 billion in Canadian investments with at least $15 billion spent in Québec. Also, according to the “local content” agreements now in place described above, this activity will consist of more than $1.4 billion in economic contributions to regional stakeholders (landowners, municipalities, etc.) over a period of 20 years. Likewise, jobs will also be part of this emerging economic growth. During the construction of wind farms, more than 9,800 jobs will be created and 2,000 jobs will stay permanently in these regions (approximately 800 manufacturing jobs and 1,200 operations and maintenance jobs).   

Technical possibilities

Achieving the 12,000 MW capacity will be easier for the province of Québec following 2015, knowing that the first step, the 4,000 MW capacity, will already be accomplished. Heretofore, the province has worked intensively on the implementation of wind power facilities and on building the associated infrastructure. Now that this is done, though investments are still needed, it’s now possible to take advantage of economies of scale and lower marginal costs. Many of these investments will interconnect new wind farms to the already existing transmission system. Gaëtan Lafrance, Ph. D in Engineering, Professor and Associate Member at Laval University, and Honorary Professor at INSR (Institut national de recherche scientifique), explains how it is possible to build these new interconnections and why it will be profitable for the Government of Québec. (See http://www.canwea.ca/pdf/qc_windvision2025_technicalopinion_fr.pdf)

In conclusion, the path to a greater role for wind power sometimes seems full of pitfalls, but the Québec example is another reminder that investing in wind power can be profitable for many and especially for local communities that benefit from jobs and associated economic impacts.


By Youness Elhariri
Québec Intern for the Great Lakes Commission


Sources: