Just listened to a “Curious City” podcast about that topic this morning. My thoughts:
-If the wind turbines were built, I would be 100% in favor. But I doubt that the majority of fellow Chicagoans would agree, and can’t imagine that many developers would feel confident fighting the public backlash to their proposal. It’s 2026 and NIMBYism is only getting stronger. People with way too much time on their hands love to rally around a perceived enemy, even if it’s something innocuous like a substation, apartment building, or clean energy that could disrupt their view of the lake. Some self-proclaimed environmentalists would likely protest the turbines for various reasons, including the fact that Lake Michigan is a bird migration corridor. And they would probably be unconvinced by the fact that migratory birds tend not to fly very far from the shoreline and that the turbined-related bird deaths would be offset by reduced fossil fuel-related bird deaths.
-Obviously it sounds very unlikely for the regulatory/financial environment to encourage wind turbine development on the Great Lakes. As I understand it, one barrier is the Jones Act (archaic federal shipbuilding protectionist law) which already stifles offshore wind deployment in established regions. If it were repealed or at least reformed, then foreign “wind turbine installation vessels” might make it more cost effective to deploy, assuming they can fit through the St. Lawrence seaway locks, which I’m not sure about.
Long story short, I’m all for the idea but don’t expect to see any blades spinning in the next couple of decades at least.
- Downstate - Wednesday, Mar 11, 26 @ 8:19 am:
Sun Times has an item on wind turbines on Lake Michigan. Not being from the northern environs, what are thoughts from those in the “Windy City”?
- Friendly Bob Adams - Wednesday, Mar 11, 26 @ 10:52 am:
Well we had one day of great weather this week. Now back to March….
- Joseph M - Wednesday, Mar 11, 26 @ 11:06 am:
Re: Downstate
Just listened to a “Curious City” podcast about that topic this morning. My thoughts:
-If the wind turbines were built, I would be 100% in favor. But I doubt that the majority of fellow Chicagoans would agree, and can’t imagine that many developers would feel confident fighting the public backlash to their proposal. It’s 2026 and NIMBYism is only getting stronger. People with way too much time on their hands love to rally around a perceived enemy, even if it’s something innocuous like a substation, apartment building, or clean energy that could disrupt their view of the lake. Some self-proclaimed environmentalists would likely protest the turbines for various reasons, including the fact that Lake Michigan is a bird migration corridor. And they would probably be unconvinced by the fact that migratory birds tend not to fly very far from the shoreline and that the turbined-related bird deaths would be offset by reduced fossil fuel-related bird deaths.
-Obviously it sounds very unlikely for the regulatory/financial environment to encourage wind turbine development on the Great Lakes. As I understand it, one barrier is the Jones Act (archaic federal shipbuilding protectionist law) which already stifles offshore wind deployment in established regions. If it were repealed or at least reformed, then foreign “wind turbine installation vessels” might make it more cost effective to deploy, assuming they can fit through the St. Lawrence seaway locks, which I’m not sure about.
Long story short, I’m all for the idea but don’t expect to see any blades spinning in the next couple of decades at least.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Mar 11, 26 @ 11:42 am:
===but don’t expect to see any blades spinning===
The original bill had them in Indiana waters. There are also real concerns that, unlike the ocean, the lake freezes, which could damage the poles.
IOW, it’s a whole lot more complicated than your claims make it seem.