Renewable Energy Development in Michigan & The United States

Article which fairly, though it probably misses some details from both sides, on renewable energy development concerns in Michigan.

I'm personally, living on a farm, do not see the pov of the people who don't want it in their back yard, other than aesthetics.

As a farmer, which I'm not, being paid more per acre for a solar lease than I can make farming sounds like a good deal.

Wind generation is even a better deal as I could still farm, maybe even solar as there are farmers using solar farms for grazing land.

https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/rural-michigan-farmers-split-over-big-solar

Trapper Gus wrote:Article which fairly, though it probably misses some details from both sides, on renewable energy development concerns in Michigan.

I'm personally, living on a farm, do not see the pov of the people who don't want it in their back yard, other than aesthetics.

As a farmer, which I'm not, being paid more per acre for a solar lease than I can make farming sounds like a good deal.

Wind generation is even a better deal as I could still farm, maybe even solar as there are farmers using solar farms for grazing land.

https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/rural-michigan-farmers-split-over-big-solar

There's also a noise factor with solar farms.
Yes, Solar Farms Can Produce Noise!

Trapper, learn to make clickable links (see Jake just above). I'm unlikely to read most of the drivel you post but I won't even give it a glance if I have to copy and paste the link myself.

Jake from State Farm wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:Article which fairly, though it probably misses some details from both sides, on renewable energy development concerns in Michigan.

I'm personally, living on a farm, do not see the pov of the people who don't want it in their back yard, other than aesthetics.

As a farmer, which I'm not, being paid more per acre for a solar lease than I can make farming sounds like a good deal.

Wind generation is even a better deal as I could still farm, maybe even solar as there are farmers using solar farms for grazing land.

https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/rural-michigan-farmers-split-over-big-solar

There's also a noise factor with solar farms.
Yes, Solar Farms Can Produce Noise!

Hmmm...one that is more easily managed than the article suggests, which has been managed by utility companies for decades & is less than other noises in a residential neighborhood, but yes, sound is created.

The noise created by an inverter/transformer station is almost certainly less than the noise of your AC unit, at least at your house, and way less than your electric generator running once a month on its monthly maintenance schedule. We could talk about lawn mowers or street traffic but you get the idea.

Furthermore, any electrical substation has similar noise levels, as potentially do line voltage to 240 AC house voltage transformers which are possibly mounted on a utility pole at the end of your driveway or even behind your house depending on where the electric lines are routed.

This level of noise is also less than that of farm equipment.

However, yes, the substation, for that is what it is, does create sounds.

Zurn wrote:Trapper, learn to make clickable links (see Jake just above). I'm unlikely to read most of the drivel you post but I won't even give it a glance if I have to copy and paste the link myself.

I went back and tested every link I have posted in this thread and had no issue with any of them.

Which one are you having a problem with?

Trapper Gus wrote:

Jake from State Farm wrote:

There's also a noise factor with solar farms.
Yes, Solar Farms Can Produce Noise!

Hmmm...one that is more easily managed than the article suggests, which has been managed by utility companies for decades & is less than other noises in a residential neighborhood, but yes, sound is created.

The noise created by an inverter/transformer station is almost certainly less than the noise of your AC unit, at least at your house, and way less than your electric generator running once a month on its monthly maintenance schedule. We could talk about lawn mowers or street traffic but you get the idea.

Furthermore, any electrical substation has similar noise levels, as potentially do line voltage to 240 AC house voltage transformers which are possibly mounted on a utility pole at the end of your driveway or even behind your house depending on where the electric lines are routed.

This level of noise is also less than that of farm equipment.

However, yes, the substation, for that is what it is, does create sounds.

Most of what you're using for examples is intermittent noise. Solar farm noise is continuous while operating. One was built across the road from where my son lives and he's mentioned the noise more than once. It sounds like if it can be managed they're not going to do so until they're forced to.

Jake from State Farm wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Hmmm...one that is more easily managed than the article suggests, which has been managed by utility companies for decades & is less than other noises in a residential neighborhood, but yes, sound is created.

The noise created by an inverter/transformer station is almost certainly less than the noise of your AC unit, at least at your house, and way less than your electric generator running once a month on its monthly maintenance schedule. We could talk about lawn mowers or street traffic but you get the idea.

Furthermore, any electrical substation has similar noise levels, as potentially do line voltage to 240 AC house voltage transformers which are possibly mounted on a utility pole at the end of your driveway or even behind your house depending on where the electric lines are routed.

This level of noise is also less than that of farm equipment.

However, yes, the substation, for that is what it is, does create sounds.

Most of what you're using for examples is intermittent noise. Solar farm noise is continuous while operating. One was built across the road from where my son lives and he's mentioned the noise more than once. It sounds like if it can be managed they're not going to do so until they're forced to.

There should be noise ordinances in place to manage that, as the article in your link talked about.

This link says there are: https://200smichigan.com/noise-ordinance-michigan-understanding-the-regulations-and-guidelines/

Trapper Gus wrote:Article which fairly, though it probably misses some details from both sides, on renewable energy development concerns in Michigan.

I'm personally, living on a farm, do not see the pov of the people who don't want it in their back yard, other than aesthetics.

As a farmer, which I'm not, being paid more per acre for a solar lease than I can make farming sounds like a good deal.

Wind generation is even a better deal as I could still farm, maybe even solar as there are farmers using solar farms for grazing land.

https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/rural-michigan-farmers-split-over-big-solar

As a consumer of food, which I am, incentivizing farmers to not grow food sounds like a bad idea.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:Article which fairly, though it probably misses some details from both sides, on renewable energy development concerns in Michigan.

I'm personally, living on a farm, do not see the pov of the people who don't want it in their back yard, other than aesthetics.

As a farmer, which I'm not, being paid more per acre for a solar lease than I can make farming sounds like a good deal.

Wind generation is even a better deal as I could still farm, maybe even solar as there are farmers using solar farms for grazing land.

https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/rural-michigan-farmers-split-over-big-solar

As a consumer of food, which I am, incentivizing farmers to not grow food sounds like a bad idea.

Somewhere, in the Bridge link I think, someone is quoted as saying that if Michigan was powered 100% by solar it would take about 1% of the farm land.

Also there are new tech solar cells in development which generate twice the power as existing ones and newer tech yet that potentially boost output to 4 times as much, so much less land needed, and in terms of production not all land was created equal.

BTW, I do understand the noise issue, from Jake's nephew's pov & I think he should work with the local government to have lower level noise restrictions imposed.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

As a consumer of food, which I am, incentivizing farmers to not grow food sounds like a bad idea.

Somewhere, in the Bridge link I think, someone is quoted as saying that if Michigan was powered 100% by solar it would take about 1% of the farm land.

Also there are new tech solar cells in development which generate twice the power as existing ones and newer tech yet that potentially boost output to 4 times as much, so much less land needed, and in terms of production not all land was created equal.

BTW, I do understand the noise issue, from Jake's nephew's pov & I think he should work with the local government to have lower level noise restrictions imposed.

It's always the new stuff in development that's gonna save the day with you, isn't it?

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Somewhere, in the Bridge link I think, someone is quoted as saying that if Michigan was powered 100% by solar it would take about 1% of the farm land.

Also there are new tech solar cells in development which generate twice the power as existing ones and newer tech yet that potentially boost output to 4 times as much, so much less land needed, and in terms of production not all land was created equal.

BTW, I do understand the noise issue, from Jake's nephew's pov & I think he should work with the local government to have lower level noise restrictions imposed.

It's always the new stuff in development that's gonna save the day with you, isn't it?

That is what these threads are about. Costs dropping and tech improving.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

As a consumer of food, which I am, incentivizing farmers to not grow food sounds like a bad idea.

Somewhere, in the Bridge link I think, someone is quoted as saying that if Michigan was powered 100% by solar it would take about 1% of the farm land.

Also there are new tech solar cells in development which generate twice the power as existing ones and newer tech yet that potentially boost output to 4 times as much, so much less land needed, and in terms of production not all land was created equal.

BTW, I do understand the noise issue, from Jake's nephew's pov & I think he should work with the local government to have lower level noise restrictions imposed.

He tried working with the local government, Clinton County. They were more interested in the new tax dollars than they were in what the citizens had to say.

Jake from State Farm wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Somewhere, in the Bridge link I think, someone is quoted as saying that if Michigan was powered 100% by solar it would take about 1% of the farm land.

Also there are new tech solar cells in development which generate twice the power as existing ones and newer tech yet that potentially boost output to 4 times as much, so much less land needed, and in terms of production not all land was created equal.

BTW, I do understand the noise issue, from Jake's nephew's pov & I think he should work with the local government to have lower level noise restrictions imposed.

He tried working with the local government, Clinton County. They were more interested in the new tax dollars than they were in what the citizens had to say.

That sucks.  He will need to rent a sound level meter and make some measurements and find out what the local levels allowed are.  Maybe there is a sound level app on line he could use with his phone.

If he is in an HOA maybe he could involve them.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Jake from State Farm wrote:

He tried working with the local government, Clinton County. They were more interested in the new tax dollars than they were in what the citizens had to say.

That sucks.  He will need to rent a sound level meter and make some measurements and find out what the local levels allowed are.  Maybe there is a sound level app on line he could use with his phone.

If he is in an HOA maybe he could involve them.

It's rural property so no HOA and Clinton County only regulates noise between the hours of 8:00pm and 8:00am. So that's not much use. I do have a decibel meter. I'll have to check and see what it measures.

Jake from State Farm wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

That sucks.  He will need to rent a sound level meter and make some measurements and find out what the local levels allowed are.  Maybe there is a sound level app on line he could use with his phone.

If he is in an HOA maybe he could involve them.

It's rural property so no HOA and Clinton County only regulates noise between the hours of 8:00pm and 8:00am. So that's not much use. I do have a decibel meter. I'll have to check and see what it measures.

In the summer there may be something in that, for the other hours maybe research into what typical suburban areas require and try to get the requirements changed for continuous sound sources.  While there is a "right to farm" law, as you said that is a non continuous sound.

This is interesting.

A building in A2 is planning to have its own power and not be connected to the electric grid at all.

https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/2024/07/never-seen-anything-like-this-ann-arbor-development-will-generate-its-own-power.html

[tw]1815104215821496826[/tw]

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/sp/americas-cheapest-sources-of-electricity-in-2024/

https://michiganadvance.com/2024/07/26/michigan-awarded-129m-in-federal-funding-to-push-forward-renewable-energy-goals/

https://michiganadvance.com/2024/08/25/market-problems-poor-planning-causing-price-hikes-in-nations-largest-electric-market-critics-say/

This is a long and detailed article about how one of the regional electricity management boards, which is controlled by fossil fuel interests, has been dragging its feet and causing the price of electrify in its region to skyrocket.

I'm sure that we will be hearing that it is the renewable generation, which is the least expensive form of generation, which is casue the price increases, when it is everything else...

https://michiganadvance.com/2024/08/27/michigan-aims-to-tackle-clean-energy-goals-in-upper-peninsula/

Michigan’s new climate laws require utilities to transition to entirely “clean” electricity sources by 2040. As the state’s Public Service Commission figures out what that will look like, it has to pay special attention to the Upper Peninsula and the natural gas plants that went online there just five years ago.

Motown Spartan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:https://michiganadvance.com/2024/08/27/michigan-aims-to-tackle-clean-energy-goals-in-upper-peninsula/

Two NG plants went up in the past 5 years that brought down two coal burning plants that were on the lakeshore in Marquette. They ain’t getting replaced anytime soon.

Being next to the great lakes they could use some water (to get the Hydrogen) and capture some of the CO2 and send it off to somewhere else as Methane. That would allow these to be cleaner in terms of CO2. Fifteen years is a bit of an aggressive schedule, but the technology is developing quickly.

gomersbro wrote:

Motown Spartan wrote:

Two NG plants went up in the past 5 years that brought down two coal burning plants that were on the lakeshore in Marquette. They ain’t getting replaced anytime soon.

Being next to the great lakes they could use some water (to get the Hydrogen) and capture some of the CO2 and send it off to somewhere else as Methane. That would allow these to be cleaner in terms of CO2. Fifteen years is a bit of an aggressive schedule, but the technology is developing quickly.

In terms of global warming that is like cutting off an arm to save a finger...

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/what-makes-methane-more-potent-greenhouse-gas-carbon-dioxide

Trapper Gus wrote:

gomersbro wrote:

Being next to the great lakes they could use some water (to get the Hydrogen) and capture some of the CO2 and send it off to somewhere else as Methane. That would allow these to be cleaner in terms of CO2. Fifteen years is a bit of an aggressive schedule, but the technology is developing quickly.

In terms of global warming that is like cutting off an arm to save a finger...

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/what-makes-methane-more-potent-greenhouse-gas-carbon-dioxide

You wouldn't be just releasing the Methane (ch4) in the air. It would be transported to other locations to be burned. (Infrastructure already exists for methane. H2 Not so much.) Yes you are releasing the carbon there, but you have used it two times (in theory you could capture the carbon monoxide/dioxide again). Or if you wanted to go really radical you could have methane pyrolysis where the methane dissolves into pure hydrogen and solid carbon (which could be used for nanotubes). Many exciting possibilities, but too much money to be made by continuing the existing way.

gomersbro wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

In terms of global warming that is like cutting off an arm to save a finger...

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/what-makes-methane-more-potent-greenhouse-gas-carbon-dioxide

You wouldn't be just releasing the Methane (ch4) in the air. It would be transported to other locations to be burned. (Infrastructure already exists for methane. H2 Not so much.) Yes you are releasing the carbon there, but you have used it two times (in theory you could capture the carbon monoxide/dioxide again). Or if you wanted to go really radical you could have methane pyrolysis where the methane dissolves into pure hydrogen and solid carbon (which could be used for nanotubes). Many exciting possibilities, but too much money to be made by continuing the existing way.

WTF, bro? You sound like a rocket scientist here.

Floyd Robertson wrote:

gomersbro wrote:

You wouldn't be just releasing the Methane (ch4) in the air. It would be transported to other locations to be burned. (Infrastructure already exists for methane. H2 Not so much.) Yes you are releasing the carbon there, but you have used it two times (in theory you could capture the carbon monoxide/dioxide again). Or if you wanted to go really radical you could have methane pyrolysis where the methane dissolves into pure hydrogen and solid carbon (which could be used for nanotubes). Many exciting possibilities, but too much money to be made by continuing the existing way.

WTF, bro? You sound like a rocket scientist here.

Sorry, I am just trying to promote some solutions. Too many people throw their hands up when it comes to climate change, because it is hard. But we have smart people working on it, and I just want to show there are potential solutions available IF we had politicians willing to support them.

gomersbro wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

In terms of global warming that is like cutting off an arm to save a finger...

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/what-makes-methane-more-potent-greenhouse-gas-carbon-dioxide

You wouldn't be just releasing the Methane (ch4) in the air. It would be transported to other locations to be burned. (Infrastructure already exists for methane. H2 Not so much.) Yes you are releasing the carbon there, but you have used it two times (in theory you could capture the carbon monoxide/dioxide again). Or if you wanted to go really radical you could have methane pyrolysis where the methane dissolves into pure hydrogen and solid carbon (which could be used for nanotubes). Many exciting possibilities, but too much money to be made by continuing the existing way.

Not sure I understand, however, if CO2 is released by burning the methane isn't it the same CO2 that was captured from the NG plant?

Trapper Gus wrote:

gomersbro wrote:

You wouldn't be just releasing the Methane (ch4) in the air. It would be transported to other locations to be burned. (Infrastructure already exists for methane. H2 Not so much.) Yes you are releasing the carbon there, but you have used it two times (in theory you could capture the carbon monoxide/dioxide again). Or if you wanted to go really radical you could have methane pyrolysis where the methane dissolves into pure hydrogen and solid carbon (which could be used for nanotubes). Many exciting possibilities, but too much money to be made by continuing the existing way.

Not sure I understand, however, if CO2 is released by burning the methane isn't it the same CO2 that was captured from the NG plant?

Exactly. This is called synthetic Methane. It can be then be stored to be burned later and the CO2 stays in a closed-loop. In this case it acts like a battery for your renewables. Or you could ship it off to be used elsewhere (obviously outside the loop) which reduces the CO2 footprint by 50%.

gomersbro wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Not sure I understand, however, if CO2 is released by burning the methane isn't it the same CO2 that was captured from the NG plant?

Exactly. This is called synthetic Methane. It can be then be stored to be burned later and the CO2 stays in a closed-loop. In this case it acts like a battery for your renewables. Or you could ship it off to be used elsewhere (obviously outside the loop) which reduces the CO2 footprint by 50%.

Okay, so we just keep using the same CO2 over and over?

Isn't there an energy loss to convert the CO2 into methane?

Report says that Michigan is gaining jobs, lowering electricity costs and increasing GDP due to funding to transition from fossil fuels to renewable electricity sources.

https://michiganadvance.com/2024/09/10/clean-energy-laws-and-funding-fuel-michigan-jobs-and-economic-growth-new-study-says/

https://michiganadvance.com/2024/11/19/michigan-municipalities-challenge-states-new-clean-energy-zoning-law/

https://www.mlive.com/environment/2024/11/consumers-energy-says-big-renewable-energy-rollout-wont-require-new-bill-surcharge.html

Consumers Power to save hundreds of millions by switching to renewable energy generation.

Fairly long article detailing how some power companies are charging more for coal fired generation of electricity.

https://www.mlive.com/environment/2024/11/michigan-utility-wants-to-charge-customers-for-pricey-coal-boondoggle-watchdogs-say.html