Ann Arbor's $1.4M wind turbine project intended to educate community about renewable energy
The city of Ann Arbor is planning to partner with Ann Arbor Public Schools and New York-based Wind Products Inc. on a potential $1.4 million wind energy project.
The exact location hasn't been determined yet, but the idea is to install up to two wind turbines as demonstrations on school property, said Brian Steglitz, a senior utilities engineer for the city.
The Ann Arbor City Council voted 10-0 Monday night to accept and appropriate up to $951,500 in federal grant money from the U.S. Department of Energy for the project.
Stoupa | Dreamstime.com
"I am pretty excited about doing this," agreed Council Member Margie Teall, D-4th Ward. "I don't think we have a lot to lose. In terms of alternative energy, the time is now … the time was yesterday."
Steglitz said the size of the turbines hasn't been decided yet, but theoretically they could be 100 to 150 feet high with 30-foot spinning blades.
He told council members he didn't have potential sites that he could share with them, though some are speculating it's most likely to be at a high school — either Skyline, Huron or Pioneer.
"We've been talking to the school system and they have some ideas," Steglitz said. "But at this point, since we have not determined any sites that we're necessarily going to move forward with studying, we've been asked by them not to make those sites publicly available at this point."
The grant has an end date of June 30, 2014. Steglitz said the construction would have to be completed by then under the requirements of the grant.
"We have a timeline and it's aggressive, but it's doable," he said, acknowledging city officials have had only preliminary discussions with AAPS so far.
"They were very excited when we approached them," he said, "They'll get a little bit of a financial benefit from the wind turbine because they're going to be guaranteed a price for power which is less than their current costs, so there's one incentive there.
"They think this is going to be an educational tool for the school system, their kids," he added. "They have programs within the schools that look at technology and this sort of fits into some of their goals and their science curriculum and things like that. For those reasons, they're excited to participate."
The grant requires a $484,390 local match, but city officials have found a way around making a cash contribution. It's the city's intent to partner with AAPS and the developer to provide the site and financing required for the match, so the city's contribution will be $18,590 in staff time.
Steglitz said the council will be asked at a future meeting to approve agreements with AAPS and the site developer. He revealed at Monday's meeting that Wind Products Inc., based in Brooklyn, NY., is the private developer the city expects to provide the local match for the project.
Brian Steglitz
Council Member Jane Lumm, an Independent who represents the 2nd Ward, was one of a handful of council members who expressed caution Monday night.
Lumm was particularly concerned that the city was taking on a new environmental project on top of a number of ongoing initiatives related to public transit. She said she feared the city is trying to tackle too many projects at once with limited resources and not focusing enough on core services.
Lumm said she feared the council could find out later on it's going to cost the city significantly more money than planned.
"There are risks and costs here," she said before ultimately voting for the project along with the rest of her colleagues.
Council Member Sally Hart Petersen, D-2nd Ward, also had concerns but said she wanted to see AAPS and the city work together more.
Council Member Sabra Briere, D-1st Ward, relayed concerns she's heard that Ann Arbor isn't a good location for wind energy generation.
"We don't have the steady 13- or 14-mph winds that you really need in order to make this work. Our average wind is under 10 mph," she said, going on to ask: "Why are we doing this here?"
Steglitz said the purpose of the project is not to construct a wind farm, but to demonstrate the viability of wind technology and use it as an educational tool for the community.
"I don't think that we are, as a city, indicating that we think Ann Arbor has this great wind resource and we want to tap into it," Steglitz said. "What this is really about is educating the community about renewable sources of energy. And to have a wind turbine in the city, which is sort of a monument to renewable energy, sort of speaks a little bit to the community's goals and interests."
Steglitz said it will provide a hands-on tool for AAPS to teach students about wind energy.
"If everything sort of falls into place, our ideal scenario would be to build two turbines with two different technologies, and there would be some educational components," he said. "There would be a web-based tool where you could go online and see which one's generating what and interact with them."
It's expected the developer will construct the turbines and provide the public schools with a 20-year power purchase agreement that would help AAPS save on electricity costs. Meanwhile, the city would obtain renewable energy credits from the installation.
Mayor John Hieftje said his enthusiasm for the project lately, in part, has come from the third-party comments he's heard. He said he had a good conversation with a local high school science teacher who is excited about the possibility of having a working clean energy lab right outside the school.
"We may have new turbine designers 10 years from now who earned their chops right here at a high school in Ann Arbor," he said. "It's a pretty exciting chance."
Council Member Stephen Kunselman, D-3rd Ward, said he expects the school board to deal with some of the remaining concerns about where the turbines will go and how the community will respond. Since it's going to be on school property, he said, it would have been short-sighted on the council's part if it didn't give AAPS the chance to consider the issue.
"Really it sounds like we're going to be handing off to the Ann Arbor Public Schools board and they're going to be making some more of the salient decisions," he said.
Steglitz said AAPS had wanted to put a wind turbine at Skyline a while back, but that fell through. The city also was partnering with the University of Michigan on a wind energy partnership that fell through, and so it worked out for the city and AAPS to forge a new partnership.
The city's initial grant application in 2009 identified the city's Water Treatment Plant as a potential recipient of the power generated.
Steglitz said a $35,000 environmental assessment and about $300,000 worth of outreach and education as part of the project are 100 percent covered by the grant and don't require matching funds. The outreach/educational component will be overseen by the city but subcontracted out to the project developer. Potential additional partners include the Ecology Center and AAPS.
Steglitz said the $18,590 in staff time included in the budget reflects the time commitment to manage the project start to finish, oversee the public outreach/education program, purchasing, construction oversight, and federal reporting requirements. Legal support is not included.
He said the $18,590 actually represents only 50 percent of the estimated staff costs, but the city will be reimbursed for half its staff costs.
Council Member Mike Anglin, D-5th Ward, was absent.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's email newsletters.
Comments
Mitch
Mon, Jan 14, 2013 : 5:22 p.m.
I would rather see the money go to Sports and Music rather than this new bridge to nowhere.
Judy
Mon, Jan 14, 2013 : 3:34 p.m.
Watch for the complains to come in like the U of M is getting for the solor panels on Plymouth Road.
Klaus
Fri, Jan 11, 2013 : 2:30 p.m.
It seems to me that this would be better sited at Washtenaw Community College. WCC students would benefit more from having them on-site than the public schools since they could be incorporated into one of their skilled trade programs. This location would make it less viable for providing power to the water treatment plant but more viable for providing power to the sewage treatment plant. It should also be pointed out that Washtenaw County had a study done to evaluate wind potential for this are. An instrumented tower was installed at the Chrysler Proving Grounds and wind speed measurements were made at different heights above ground for a year. The data and reports are available online at ( http://www.ewashtenaw.org/government/departments/planning_environment/planning/wind_power/Wind%20Data%20and%20Reports ). The conclusion was that wind farms for this area were not viable at the time of the report so I would not expect these turbines to be net positive as far as operating costs go. However, this could be offset by making them more of an educational and training tool and not just something to look at.
LXIX
Wed, Jan 9, 2013 : 11:35 a.m.
@Ryan Please update this article with comments made during the Tue. night Energy Commission meeting. Apparently the windmills were a dormant project left by a former handler at City Hall. It was revitalized by the federal need for timely action. The former handler failed to correctly transfer the project to the Energy Commission who are the cognizant people responsible for such energy activity. The new handler was in Utilities Dept. and somewhat clueless as to what should be done. He was wrongfully co-opted into working with the third party as a no-bid sole source partner. Agreements were made without consulting the energy professionals who very likely would have done things differently. The mayor who sits on the commission was some what chagrined during the session and tried to make the best of a bad situation on behalf of his Utilities department bungle. It is unlikely the project will ever complete now unless it is correctly restructured and/or advised through the Energy Commission.
Kai Petainen
Wed, Jan 9, 2013 : 5:24 a.m.
Let's assume Huron won't get a windmill as there is a non-spinning windmill closeby at the VA Hospital. To the other highschool students, they want to spend $1.5 million to teach you about windpower. Do you know how you can learn? It's very easy... read this article and read the comments. Learn both sides of the issue and learn about how windmills work and what is required (wind) for them to work. Then, if you want an educational lesson, go to the public forums that they'll hopefully hold at a time that you won't have to skip school. Voice your opinion (for or against) and in the process you'll learn about geography, weather, politics and business.
shepard145
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 9:49 p.m.
So the Argo and other area dam turbines that were not economical, but wind in an area of the state with no wind is economical? LOL Democrat logic at it's finest - welcome to California Junior and prepare to PAY AND PAY AND PAY for socialist utopian dreams with no basis in reality. LOL
cook1888
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 8:43 p.m.
Grant money - give me a break. We are in debt at every level of government with so many needs and obligations that we have no way of paying and still the fools continue to spend. Every time I read the news some new entity is receiving grant money. As the "government" finds ever new ways to spend they demand more taxes and insinuate some groups don't pay enough. We are spending what future generations will have to pay for. At some point they will throw off the terrible yoke of debt and revolt. History always repeats itself.
Jim
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 7:53 p.m.
According to a 2011 EERE report (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/2011_wind_technologies_market_report.pdf) O&M (Operation and Maintenance) costs for wind turbines is between 1 and 4 cents per kilowatt-hour. Since there are only 2 units, I'd error on the higher side and assume 3.5 cents. So, assuming 100K Watt total capacity times 8760 hours per year times 25% capacity, we have 219,000 Kwatt-hours per annum. At 3.5 cents per, that's $7665 annually in maintenance costs. Who's paying for that? The presenters seemed to indicate the power would be provided to the school, so unless someone is paying for the power, that money has to come from somewhere. Our city doesn't need another annual 7.5K budget leak.
Roy Munson
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 7:17 p.m.
Aren't there more reasonable things out there than can be done to push the liberal agenda down people's throats in Ann Arbor? But I guess it is just the liberal way - spend, spend, spend.
Z-man
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 8:41 p.m.
I'd like to think that even some liberals can differentiate between necessary and useful spending and projects that are useless and wasteful.
Nicholas Urfe
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 7:42 p.m.
That "liberal way - spend, spend, spend" is what developed the internet. And roads. And sidewalks. So why are you using them? Why not move to a place that eschews those things?
EyeHeartA2
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 7:12 p.m.
If I wanted to "educate" the unwashed masses on the benefits of wind, I think I might set up the demo where it would actually work. Either that, or save the $1.4 million and just show them a filmstrip, run around with pinwheels or something.
Stephen Landes
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 5:43 p.m.
We're going to spend $1.4 million tax-payer dollars (whether local, Federal, or in kind contributions) to "educate" the public on the value of wind power? What we are likely to teach the public is that wind power in Ann Arbor is NOT a financially viable source of electricity; that it doesn't have a return on investment sufficient to make this a worthwhile approach to alternative energy production. Of course the public will only learn this IF the real costs and returns are provided to the public and not hidden by artificially reducing the incurred cost by claiming that somehow the Fed money isn't a real source of funding (it just magically appears).
Dog Guy
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 5:42 p.m.
If "this is going to be an educational tool for the school system, their kids," it should be spotlit at night and have an enormous fan breezing it into continuous power production.
Ross
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 4:24 p.m.
The statement that Ann Arbor is not a very windy area is a bit misleading, in my opinion. If you check the wind maps you'll see it's fairly comparable to the rest of the state, and to plenty of locations where giant wind farms have already been successfully installed. Even if our local wind potential was only 75% as good as other parts of the state, how does that make this project a complete waste of time? With a well chosen location, the turbine blades WILL STILL SPIN and make electricity, people. http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_resource_maps.asp?stateab=mi
DonBee
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 6:06 p.m.
outdoor6709 Steady wind in the 10 to 20 meter per second range is what makes power with today's wind turbines. Below that and they make very little, above that and they feather the blades and stop making power.
Craig Lounsbury
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 5:31 p.m.
according to this link from the same source provided by Ross Ann Arbor seems to fall in to the poor to marginal category. I have said before I do not object to wind energy where it make sense. It doesn't make sense here. http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/maps_template.asp?stateab=mi
Kai Petainen
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 4:45 p.m.
You're looking at the wrong map. You need to look at a 30-meter wind map, not an 80-meter wind map. The map you gave is misleading. Here's the correct map http://tinyurl.com/a755zqc In Michigan, most windfarms are located near Lake Michigan or in the thumb -- where there is wind.
outdoor6709
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 4:39 p.m.
I have monitored the wind speed today at my house peak 3.6 mph, currently 3.4. Anyone know the best wind speed for similiar wind turbines?
daytona084
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 4:13 p.m.
The federal government is broke to the tune of 16.4 TRILLION $$, and yet they are handing out money for local governments to build million dollar wind turbines, not to generate power but to educate? You can't make this stuff up.
DJBudSonic
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 4:06 p.m.
My understanding of the funding is that it is earmarked for wind tubine energy only, is that right? If so, that is too bad, I imagine that much more electricity could be generated for the same dollar amount by rooftop solar. How much rooftop solar could the schools get for 1.4 million dollars? I was quoted a few years back a 6 kilowatt residential solar system, with battery storage, grid transfer switch and installation for about $12000. Prices have dropped quite a bit since then, and panel efficiency has also improved, I would guess that would be lower than $10k today. Maybe the city and the school board should be searching for grant money in that arena, even with our cloudy weather I suspect better ROI for solar than wind in Ann Arbor.
LXIX
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 5:02 p.m.
First, second, and third that one!
Ross
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 4:25 p.m.
I do have to agree with you that solar energy production is a more viable path for our locale. Prices have plummeted in the last few years!
DJBudSonic
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 4:11 p.m.
That is, "...wind turbine energy only,..."
Jim
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 3:30 p.m.
I was at the meeting. I don't think it's a good idea. They were very vague about the output of the expected two units, which they would like to be of different types. Assuming $8 per Watt, installed, we should be getting about 100K-175KWatts of turbine, but they said they'd only get "in the kilowatt range" of output. (They were very vague.) They should have been more upfront of the expected output of the systems. That's a very basic question. If it's a very low figure, then the 'match' from Wind Products might actually be illusory. Also, for maintenance costs to be reasonable, you really want 10 or 20 of the same unit in the same basic place. That's why they call them 'farms'. Just two units of two different types, will be very expensive to maintain and repair. And who will be paying for that? Finally, it got very weird when they used the education angle to justify the things. If so, they be far better off with much smaller units which could demonstrate all aspects of wind energy without the cost, risk, and community environmental concerns. Several people mentioned that Ann Arbor is not a very windy area. So they likely won't generate much power. The developers said the power would be used by a school (presumably a high school) where the turbines will be located. What if its windy at night when the school is closed down? The power has to go somewhere. I hope they mean they will have a grid connect at the school, but it wasn't clear the developers really knew what they were doing. It was DEFINITELY clear that the council didn't know what they are getting themselves into.
Jim
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 7:55 p.m.
In another post, I estimated maintenance costs at $7.5K per annum for a 100KWatt system. A 200KWatt would be $15K, etc. Who's paying for this?
Tom Whitaker
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 4:31 p.m.
It seems if the point is to demonstrate and educate, that it might make more sense to install one large turbine, like those currently being used across the country, at Washtenaw Community College, where it could be used to train future wind farm workers on installation and maintenance.
Craig Lounsbury
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 4:08 p.m.
They were so giddy with excitement they couldn't control themselves.
Brad
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 4:04 p.m.
Craig, the most important and truthful statement in the article: "a monument to renewable energy" I don't doubt that they believe it, I'm just surprised they said it out loud.
Craig Lounsbury
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 3:44 p.m.
Thanks for the input Jim. I'm not an anti alternative energy guy. I have no problem with wind farms where they make sense. But it seems the more I read the less sense they make here.
maallen
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 2:47 p.m.
"We've been talking to the school system and they have some ideas," Steglitz said. "But at this point, since we have not determined any sites that we're necessarily going to move forward with studying, we've been asked by them not to make those sites publicly available at this point." Of course they don't want to make those sites available because they know the residents will be upset and voice their opinions. The council wants to get their marketing fluff out there and "educate" us taxpayers so we can buy into it and then they will reveal the sites. So much for a "transparent" council.
DonBee
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 2:38 p.m.
My questions to the city council and the school board are simple: 1) Who pays for the maintenance? 2) Who pays to remove it when it stops functioning from lack of maintenance? 3) How do you keep the local artists from climbing it to put their artistic "tags" on it - it will be the ultimate tag goal for many? 4) Who pays when one of these artists falls off and ends up in the hospital? Thank you
arborarmy
Wed, Jan 9, 2013 : 1:29 a.m.
Fear of graffiti The newest excuse to not pursue green energy.
DonBee
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 6:02 p.m.
Ross - LOL 1) You want a maintenance contract for 20 to 30 years it is going to cost you. Cost you more than the wind turbine. 2) I agree with Mike 3) You think a lock will keep people out - they get to the top of water towers all the time. This will be an even better score for them. 4) I doubt the insurance will cover the lawsuit that will be filed. These are real issues that need to be dealt with in the contracting, just like having the right firefighting equipment is important when you have wind turbines on tall towers.
Ross
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 4:28 p.m.
1) There would be a maintenance agreement in the contract. And a warranty from the supplier. 2) Best to accept that it is permanent. but with maintenance, it should never "stop" functioning. 3) it would be well fenced, probably with barbed wire. The stairs/ladder would be locked off, it would be absolutely un-climb-able without the keys 4) Their insurance would. Same as any other accident. but again, no one would be able to climb it.
Mike
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 3:26 p.m.
1) you do 2) you do 3) you don't 4) you do
Craig Lounsbury
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 2:37 p.m.
If one Googles wind farms and looks at pictures you don't see many trees. trees break up the wind. For a city that dubs itself tree town and has a tree as its logo its ironic that they want to build a monument to something that works best minus trees. Its worse than ironic its insane.
Craig Lounsbury
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 4 p.m.
a bit of a catch 22. We need to cut down trees to generate electricity but we need electricity to cut down trees. Maybe the city council should hire a consultant to solve the dilemma.
Mike
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 3:25 p.m.
That's why they invented chain saws................so we could put up windmills. But they would need to be electric for lower emissions................
nekm1
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 2:35 p.m.
Please build each wind turbine in the proximity of all council member homes. This is another, "not in my backyard project: Ryan, do some research on homeowners that are attempting to move from these monstrosities, and are having great difficulty.
outdoor6709
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 2:35 p.m.
Since this is going to be a learning experience for AAPS students, does anyone think we will get an honest assesment of costs vs. benefits from AA council?
Mike
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 3:23 p.m.
We don't teach cost vs. benefits anymore. Why do we need to? The supply of money from the taxpayers is endless...............
Craig Lounsbury
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 2:39 p.m.
Is this a trick question? A. No B. Of course not C. When pigs fly D. all of the above
Nicholas Urfe
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 2:29 p.m.
"Council Member Stephen Kunselman, D-3rd Ward, said he expects the school board to deal with some of the remaining concerns about where the turbines will go and how the community will respond." That is absolutely ridiculous. Boondoggle in 3, 2, 1...
Nicholas Urfe
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 2:27 p.m.
If sufficient wind is not available, this will become yet another farcical monument to government stupidity and waste. Unfortunately, the council has said that generating power isn't the point, so that does not matter. Students can be educated with small windmills on top of the schools for very little money, and without the impact to neighbors. They could directly power some lighting in the science classrooms. You don't need to burn a million for that.
Tom Whitaker
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 4:39 p.m.
Skyline already has such a turbine that was included in the original construction of the school. http://www.panoramio.com/photo/81108889 "A prominent feature of the school is a wind turbine at its highest point. Beyond its symbolic impact as a unique, environmentally sound piece, the turbine also is functional. The sinuous, spinning blades connect to a generator, which feeds power to science labs and other locations within the school. At these locations, students will monitor the turbine's energy generation. Visible from the main road and parking areas, the soundless turbine also provides movement on the building's exterior." http://asumag.com/green/ecofriendly_icon_abor/
easy123
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 2:20 p.m.
Take a look at the white elephant called Skyline. The avant-garde windmill hardly moves!
Arno B
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 2:18 p.m.
Wow! Something for nothing [aka "Free Lunch"} again! Bear in mind that backup power (usually from those dirty old coal fired plants) has to be available to pick up the slack when the wind (and solar) power diminishes or isn't available. Why not also put in a garbage re-cycling facility in a vacant school propertiy? This could give our young students good and patriotic activities with values that could last the rest of their lives. It would also be more down to earth than the windmills. Ayn Rand posed a 3 word question to the myrad projects of this sort: "At whose expense?" It seems rather curious that a Brooklyn organization somehow finds a small Michigan town (Ann Arbor) attractive for their enterprise. How many other locations are going to be eligible for this type of Washington latgesse? After all, the just-passed tax increase also continued the wind energy tax credit subsidy for another year or two. Oh well - I guess I'll just trust our fearless leader when he says that we don't have a spending problem.
Brad
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 1:58 p.m.
Let's put those babies out in the greenbelt. I sure don't want them in my neighborhood. I don't want to look at them and I don't want to hear them. If they were actually going to provide truly useful amounts of power I might feel differently.
Mike
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 3:21 p.m.
I want them in your neighborhood, I live in the greenbelt areas........................
outdoor6709
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 1:52 p.m.
Several interestings pieces of information. AA gov thinks this is such a great idea they are willing to spend someone elses money on the project. also the real reason gov is for these projects is the PPT $'s they create. Who would have guessed? It also appears AA is on hook for cost of any lawsuits.
Kai Petainen
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 1:52 p.m.
"with 30-foot spinning blades" a clarification... windmills are measured by the diameter of the blade rotor system. this would be a 60+ foot diameter windmill system.
LXIX
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 1:47 p.m.
Ms. Lumm&Peterson were wrong (nobody is perfect) in referring to the priorities set forth during the City Council retreat. That "honeydo" list puts Economic development near the top while new energy is just an afterthought. All economic activity begins with resource supply (energy). Like their monk economists, myopic leaders only see an infinite input supply coming from "who cares" and resultant output waste stream going to "who cares". Energy is an absolute. Unlike capital value, the human value (life) will fail to survive without it. This will become more apparent in the future as supply dwindles until fusion comes on line, if ever. Imaginary Federal dollars used to add any sustainable energy now is future economic survival in Ann Arbor. Common resident "cents". The problem with this project is twofold - the amount of energy being discussed and who owns it. 1. For $1.3M today you can get a 1 MWatt turbine, installed. The City Engineer was talking a few kiloWatts supply. One household versus 100s of households' worth of energy. Peanuts are still worth more than no peanuts but Council can do better. 2. How much is the third party really investing if the federal $400k will already buy the KWatt turbines being discussed? Not to mention collecting the future revenue from that small power sold to the AAPS? The only educational aspect here is the future Huron or Skyline high school kids who will learn about capital greed and how to milk the imaginary government cow. In that sense Lumm&Peterson are correct. If Council wants to do this properly then the City (future residents) should own the (megawatt not kilowatt sized) windmills and glean the human value of AAPS power generated. As well as the economic "development" carbon credits earned in exchange for its whirley blight. If they ever turn at all.
zanzerbar
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 1:44 p.m.
There is small wind turbine at Bandermer park. I'll never seen it turning. could it be because its located in the Huron River Valley.
Mike
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 1:41 p.m.
"The Ann Arbor City Council voted 10-0 Monday night to accept and appropriate up to $951,500 in federal grant money from the U.S. Department of Energy for the project Steglitz said a $35,000 environmental assessment and about $300,000 worth of outreach and education as part of the project are 100 percent covered by the grant and don't require matching funds Steglitz said the $18,590 in staff time included in the budget reflects the time commitment to manage the project start to finish, oversee the public outreach/education program, purchasing, construction oversight, and federal reporting requirements. Legal support is not included. He said the $18,590 actually represents only 50 percent of the estimated staff costs, but the city will be reimbursed for half its staff costs" For educational purposes.......this article serves that purpose very nicely and doesn't cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, to be paid for by a broke government that is overextended to the tune of almost 50% of it's budget. Wake up people! This is paid for with grant money we have to borrow from places like China or print dollars to buy of own treasury bonds thereby devaluing the currency and taking away even more of your spending power. We should be outraged by this reckless spending. When is this going to stop. They can't get all of this money from the 2%ers. We're screwed unless we stop before it is too late..............
thehawkdr
Wed, Jul 31, 2013 : 4:10 p.m.
Thank you Mike for your words of truth and logic. I do not live in Ann Arbor but have in the past. Spending time on the college campus and with city politics in general I must say, this idea does not surprise me but as a thinker and taxpayer I am disgusted. Thanks again Mike.
Craig Lounsbury
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 1:35 p.m.
I don't pretend to be an expert on wind farms and where they are viable. But there seems to be a sense within this corner of the Internet that Ann Arbor is not high on the wind viability list. So the "excuse" used by city officials is a "learning experience" . A demonstration of the viability of wind power. But the problem I have with that is, if Wikipedia is to be believed, the United States is already home to the 3 biggest and 10 of the top 13 onshore wind farms in the world. So why do we need to spend this money demonstrating a technology that the United States seems to be pretty leading edge on already? Spend the 1.4 million dollars putting windmills where they will work to their capacity.
Lets Get Real
Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 6:53 p.m.
The windmills are in their minds.
Kai Petainen
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 1:21 p.m.
One of the concerns raised at City Hall last night was the desire to have a public commentary on this development as they are rushing it through in 18 months. I voiced my thoughts in the public speaking section, but those thoughts are not mentioned in this article. Basically I stated that there is not enough wind in Ann Arbor to justify this development. It's a bad idea, and when the windmills don't work and the money is wasted, then we'll need to teach the schools about geography, weather and how money is wasted in business. So the windmill folks should know that there was opposition expressed last night to it, in the public commentary.
Mike
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 1:45 p.m.
Excellent points Kai.......we the people have created this monster called government and now they feel free to spend on pet projects and add pork to every bill in congress for their own self-gratification. Here's a list of pork included in the latest 9 billion hurricane Sandy bill: $8 million to buy cars and equipment for the Homeland Security and Justice departments. • $150 million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to dole out to fisheries in Alaska • $2 million for the Smithsonian Institution to repair museum roofs in DC. • $207 million for the VA Manhattan Medical Center • $3.3 million for the Plum Island Animal Disease Center • $1.1 million to repair national cemeteries • $58.8 million for forest restoration on private land. • $10.78 billion for public transportation, most of which is allocated to future construction and improvements, not disaster relief. • $17 billion for wasteful Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), a program that has become notorious for its use as a backdoor earmark program. • $197 million "to… protect coastal ecosystems and habitat impacted by Hurricane Sandy." • $41 million to fix up eight military bases, including Guantanamo Bay, Cuba • $4 million for repairs at Kennedy Space Center in Florida (because Florida is so close to New Jersey, right?)
Kai Petainen
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 1:24 p.m.
I'm going to repost this thought from the other article: At the city hall meeting, we learned it would be a 60 foot diameter wind turbine and it would be on a pole that was between 100 and 150 feet high. Here is an exampe of a 63 foot diameter wind turbine that can go on a pole from 100 to 140 feet. http://tinyurl.com/byg6mrx There is a diagram on that webpage, that students can take from the website for free. That diagram can be used for education and the students can be taught with that. That'll save $1.4 million. According to wind maps, Ann Arbor wind is about 5.5 to 6.0 m/s, BUT... that's on a windmill that is at 80m or 262 feet. The windmills in question for Ann Arbor would be at 100 to 140 feet. A map at 80m http://tinyurl.com/9w6zk4s To be more realistic, at the 30 meter mark or 98 feet Ann Arbor gets wind at 4.0 m/s or less. A map at 30m http://tinyurl.com/a755zqc And if we go back to that wind turbine that I had as an example, then it would produce less than 59,100 kWh. And it would produce practically nothing back to the electric grid. How much does 59,100 kWh give? Well, according to this 'energy screw', that is enough for 12 homes. http://tinyurl.com/b55gln2 According to the EIA, an average house uses 11,496 kWh. So it is enough for 5 homes. Pathetic. http://tinyurl.com/c4o2gwc And according to this page, the G3120 would cost $300K to $400K fully installed. So, if they are spending $1.4 million, someone is getting ripped off. http://tinyurl.com/aen7mw7 What a waste of money. I'm not an engineer, but I just saved people a ton in consulting fees. You can pay me $4.51 instead of $1.4 million.
yohan
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 1:14 p.m.
This reminds me of the Recycle Rewards Program. Here we go again!
DonBee
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 2:27 p.m.
yohan - but in a few years - we will have lots of scrap steel and aluminum to recycle.
Craig Lounsbury
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 1:12 p.m.
"We've been talking to the school system and they have some ideas," Steglitz said. "But at this point, since we have not determined any sites that we're necessarily going to move forward with studying, we've been asked by them not to make those sites publicly available at this point." Does the school system and the city forget who their employers are? Its a rhetorical question, of course they forget who employs them.
Ross
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 1:11 p.m.
Wow, the senseless, tone-deaf, knee-jerk comments continue to roll. People complaining about city council wasting their money need to actually try reading the article. Renewable energy is our future. Installations of a small scale like this are obviously just for demonstration purposes, but you know what? They also produce clean electricity. I'm all for it. Except, let's get 2 150-foot turbine installed on every viable AAPS site in town. It's time to scale up and get ourselves off dirty fossil fuels.
LXIX
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 4:23 p.m.
Absolutely correct Ross. Time to get off those dirty carbon-based fuels. These windmills, however, are really fake green machines. Taking precious human investment away from the real production that is so desperately needed today. A2 should get upset at the so-called environmentalist behind this fake rather than actually doing something productive. It weakens their stature as being serious green energy promoters. And nekm1, natural gas is not "clean". It is another carbon-based fuel (mostly methane CH4). When burned it produces the greenhouse gas called carbon dioxide (CO2) which is believed to help cause global warming. Not that anyone cares if it is 60 degrees outdoors this weekend. Fracking chemicals are now thought to be contaminating our even more precious water supply just to get to that wondrous "100 year" supply.
Ross
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 4:14 p.m.
Good stuff. Natural gas is far from clean. Enjoy your fracked drinking water. Carbon emissions? hello..... Michigan is a pretty windy state. Ann Arbor may not be the windiest part of it, but there's certainly plenty of wind energy to be captured by turbines here. This is a fact, check the wind maps. Because we are not in the absolute best location certainly does not mean that this is a pointless venture. Site the turbines on our tallest hill in the best sustained winds and I can guarantee you we'll all see those turbines blades rotating almost every single day!! Those who refuse to accept this are delusional, in my opinion. Michigan is pretty flat, our winds are not that varied across the state. Check the maps. And Craig, I was referring specifically to all the comments on this article and preceding one where people said that our CITY was wasting money on this. Since the city is NOT PAYING for it, they clearly did not read the article. And if you try to tell me that $18k of administrative expenses is a big waste, then you ought to be protesting in front of city hall every single day. I'm building my own house in the area soon and will be starting to measure wind speeds at various locations on my property. I'm pretty certain I can find a spot for a turbine that will pay for itself within 15 years. T.B.D.
nekm1
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 2:39 p.m.
why is it our future? We have 100 years of clean natural gas, available just in the US! If renewable comes in time, it will come with demand. Why continue to force these things because they make you feel good?
easy123
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 2:22 p.m.
You pay for it - and then reap the rewards! If it is viable, then it should be self sustaining. Have you been to the windmill farms near San Franisco- they are hideous!
Billy
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 1:32 p.m.
Um...had you read the article you would have seen that this is pretty much JUST for demonstration purposes...in fact it might not even support it's own cost... Know what else produces clean electricity? Nuclear power...
Craig Lounsbury
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 1:20 p.m.
I will add Ross, that your notion that anyone who disagrees with you didn't read the article is a bit condescending. I don't see why anyone thinks spending 1.4 million dollars of tax payer money to install something that will under perform due to geography is a good idea.
Craig Lounsbury
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 1:16 p.m.
It doesn't appear that this particular area is very conducive to generating wind from electricity Ross. At least one contributor to this forum concluded that when seeking to install one for himself. members of city council also express that concern as did Brian Steglitz, a senior utilities engineer for the city. So what do you know about wind turbine viability in Ann Arbor that they don't?
Craig Lounsbury
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 1:05 p.m.
"Steglitz said the purpose of the project is not to construct a wind farm but to..... have a a monument to renewable energy," "I don't think that we are, as a city, indicating that we think Ann Arbor has this great wind resource and we want to tap into it,..." sort of a million dollar semi nonfunctional work of art? Hey look at this cool renewable energy thing that won't really work here. The city council thinks they should educate the citizens that a windmill somewhere else is a good idea.
Billy
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 12:58 p.m.
Anytime a project is suspect, look at who stands to gain the MOST benefit from it and what that benefit is... If the entity that stands to gain the most is NOT the target beneficiary of the project....then something is indeed "up." IF YOU PAID FOR IT YOU ARE THE CONSUMER. IF IT IS FREE YOU ARE THE PRODUCT.
HappySenior
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 12:29 p.m.
Which lucky citizens will become neighbors to a wind turbine that makes noise, interfers with birds, and offers questionable aesthetics? Will the educational material cover the article from The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/science/earth/04wind.html?_r=0) saying things like: Wind machines can displace power from coal and make electricity without sulfur dioxide, which causes acid rain, and without nitrogen oxides, which add to smog. But the study said they would not reduce the total output of those pollutants because there was already a cap on sulfur emissions and one on nitrogen oxides was likely to follow. Wind power could also reduce coal-plant carbon dioxide, which is thought to cause climate change, but the impact may be small, the report said. By 2025, wind turbines could cut carbon dioxide output by 4.5 percent compared with what it would otherwise have been, but this "would only slow the increase," said Dr. Risser. "It wouldn't result in a decrease in the amount of CO2." Will they talk about the pollution created by wind energy when the rare minerals needed for the magnets in the engine are mined, as described the the UK Daily Mail(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html): Hidden out of sight behind smoke-shrouded factory complexes in the city of Baotou, and patrolled by platoons of security guards, lies a five-mile wide 'tailing' lake. It has killed farmland for miles around, made thousands of people ill and put one of China's key waterways in jeopardy. "This vast, hissing cauldron of chemicals is the dumping ground for seven million tons a year of mined rare earth after it has been doused in acid and chemicals and processed through red-hot furnaces to extract its components."
LXIX
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 4:57 p.m.
The Soviet Union knew of and told the US about a deposit of rare earth minerals in Afghanistan. Rare earth minerals are not rare per se. They only rarely collect together in one place. Now the Afghans have their own mine to make poison with. It's not only the opium money that attracts capital outsiders to this country. Maybe the Taliban will also perish while trying to process this rare find in support of their cause. A twisted version of chemical warfare. So much for the "green" color in windmill technology.
shipdog7
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 12:14 p.m.
Yes there is hope money can be made as a result of these initial two turbines more than paying for themselves down the road. Doubts? Many! In today's world of reality why do I read between the lines that someone is getting paid to help sponsor this project? To be the rah rah guy. Or gal. In a time of budget cuts , layoffs etc, it just doesn't seem like the proper time to be experimenting. Oh look kids! A couple of windmills that will provide energy for your school one day. Or maybe not.
Karen
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 12:11 p.m.
"Steglitz said the purpose of the project is not to construct a wind farm, but to demonstrate the viability of wind technology and use it as an educational tool for the community." So I am to be "educated" yet again about how wonderful this technology is. I anticipate a visual blight of giant out of human scale wind turbines similar to that in Essex county in Ontario, or comparable to the huge solar panel array that has cut off all the view south of Plymouth Road opposite Krogers. So our tax money paid to the schools is now going to be diverted to pay for yet another unwanted City Council project. Well, I will expect an accounting of how expensive it is relative to the sources of energy that produce enough base load to keep Ann Arbor running day and night (oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear which produce energy returns of 20-30%). This accounting should include the maintenance costs, depreciation costs to the taxpayers of the subsidies, and revenues from the sale of the energy. The latter will likely be pretty low, as the percentage return of energy on wind is usually in the 2-3% range as wind turbines break down quickly due to wear and tear (friction). And I would like the City to provide their research data for the wind speeds in Ann Arbor for the past 1-2 years. I assume they have looked into the availability of the motive force for these turbines prior to spending our money. My sense is this is a substitute for the failed railway project.
Ross
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 4:07 p.m.
Veracity, is it your belief that these turbines would generate no electricity at all? What if our sustained winds were only 80% of a better location. Does that make this a complete boondoggle? If $18k of staff time is enough to ruffle your feathers, there are dozens of city projects that truly waste money.
Veracity
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 2:13 p.m.
Ross - You missed this quote from the above article: "developer to provide the site and financing required for the match, so the city's contribution will be $18,590 in staff time." Even this relatively modest cost is unwarranted since the windmill is not expected to be productive and may even be considered a "monument." Consider the following additional quote from the same article: "Steglitz said the purpose of the project is not to construct a wind farm, but to demonstrate the viability of wind technology and use it as an educational tool for the community. "I don't think that we are, as a city, indicating that we think Ann Arbor has this great wind resource and we want to tap into it," Steglitz said. "What this is really about is educating the community about renewable sources of energy. And to have a wind turbine in the city, which is sort of a monument to renewable energy, sort of speaks a little bit to the community's goals and interests." Steglitz said it will provide a hands-on tool for AAPS to teach students about wind energy." What precisely can students expect to learn from essentially a "mock-up" of anon-functional windmill? Want to watch functioning windmills in real time and for free? Visit these websites: http://www.acua.com/acua/content.aspx?id=492&ekmensel=c580fa7b_20_88_btnlink http://www.webcamvue.com/default.asp?webcam=l9BbnPr99Kj2&c=undefined And there are more!
Ross
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 1:08 p.m.
Spending "our money" ? Read the article again, Karen. Then read it AGAIN. Then think about the words you just read, and what they mean. The money is coming from two sources: 1) pre-allocated, specific funding from the DOE. It can't be otherwise returned to you (your share, about 0.000004 cents) or used to pay down the national debt. If you don't like it, contact your legislators and ask them not to approve it in the first place. and 2) the developer of the wind turbine installation.
B2Pilot
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 12:04 p.m.
100 to 150 feet high really? a little tough to get a hands on knowledge at that height
Bcar
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 11:50 a.m.
"hands on" learning tool? yeah right, like they're going to or should let HS kids play with one of these, NOT! yet another way to "pretend to be green" at tax payers expense (Fed and local taxes). but hey, it will be another nice feather in someone's cap...
Lets Get Real
Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 6:49 p.m.
I agree, "hands on" learning tool, my foot. This is a place for the developer to place the turbines at no cost to him and generate and sell the product produced. Prostitution of the school land - a few bucks, somemone else's benefit.
A2James
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 11:43 a.m.
Just connect it to the Balas Administration building. There is a constant flow of hot air coming out of there
A2comments
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 11:38 a.m.
Seems to be a lot of money to spend for wind energy that won't produce at an acceptable level. Can't they take a bus to that wind turbine at the farm that AnnArbor.com wrote about prior? Or install a webcam? I especially love the effort put into avoiding the cash outlay. How about spending money so that kids at Skyline can wear two gloves during dissecting...
Veracity
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 2 p.m.
Ross - Here is the related discussion raised by Sabre Briere: "Council Member Sabra Briere, D-1st Ward, relayed concerns she's heard that Ann Arbor isn't a good location for wind energy generation. "We don't have the steady 13- or 14-mph winds that you really need in order to make this work. Our average wind is under 10 mph," she said, going on to ask: "Why are we doing this here?" Steglitz said the purpose of the project is not to construct a wind farm, but to demonstrate the viability of wind technology and use it as an educational tool for the community." Personally, I am not convinced that the educational benefit is worth even the $18,590 in staff time. If the wind is insufficient to cause blade rotation, no electricity will be generated and the windmill will only be a "monument" as was mentioned during the City Council meeting. Students can learn sufficiently from text book and Internet material. You want to watch an operating windmill that will cost Ann Arbor taxpayers no money at all? Go to these websites: http://www.acua.com/acua/content.aspx?id=492&ekmensel=c580fa7b_20_88_btnlink http://www.webcamvue.com/default.asp?webcam=l9BbnPr99Kj2&c=undefined
Ross
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 1:05 p.m.
Please provide a source for your statement that it "won't produce at an acceptable level".
McGiver
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 11:17 a.m.
Would it not be good to include, as a part of the educational value of the project, a full accounting of cost (including maintenance) vs benefit of this project? Maybe it's better to buy two books about wind energy. Cost for that - about 50 bucks.
smb
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 6:22 p.m.
Or how about this? How about a small scale windmill that students could build themselves. Then as part of a long term project they could monitor it's output, record wind speeds and learn the physics of how their small model would scale up to a large full size one. Then they could research initial costs and ongoing maintenance. They could research the energy needs of a city the size of Ann Arbor and in the end make some informed conclusions about the viability of windmills here. How many would be needed? Where would they go? How much wind is required to make them more cost effective than fossil fuels? What would we use for energy on no wind days? Then when they're all done they could submit their findings to the City Council. Everybody wins. The kids get an education and the City Council gets the cost/benefit analysis that they should be doing for this type of project anyway all for a few hundred bucks.
Billy
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 12:59 p.m.
Actually...the fact that they avoided talking about that when things like ROI are usually speaking point #1 in any business plan pretty much screams that this project isn't what it seems.