EoW July 2009

Transat lant ic Cable

EuroWire – January 2006

EuroWire – J ly 2009

Energy

A project to generate electricity from the

Lake Erie winds is driven by interstate rivalry

“We are in a race with the rest of the Midwest. Whoever gets

in the water rst wins the race.” Cuyahoga County (Ohio)

prosecutor Bill Mason was referring to the establishment

of an o shore wind industry in his state, involving the placement

of three to eight wind turbines on Lake Erie. The turbines,

for the generation of electricity, would be clearly visible three

miles out from Cleveland’s shoreline. Costs are estimated at

$78 million to $93 million. Writing in the

Cleveland Plain Dealer

Tom Breckenridge reported that the prospect of radical alteration

to the lake vista has drawn little opposition from a populace

eager for change in the economic landscape of the region. The

results of a year-long feasibility study appear to encourage

hopes of an industry in o shore wind utilisation and possibly

thousands of new jobs. (‘Wind Turbines on Lake Erie,’ 1

May)

The feasibility study, for which an energy task force paid

$1 million to a team led by the German company juwi GmbH,

was a thorough job. It examined the technical, environmental,

regulatory, and nancial aspects of launching a turbine

demonstration project, together with related research, testing,

and certi cation concerns. On the strength of the ndings,

the task force – made up of city, county, civic, and business

leaders – indicated it would le for state and federal permits

to erect the turbines within three years, if not sooner. “The task

force chairman acknowledges he was staggered by the costs,”

wrote Mr Breckenridge, who also pointed out that pro tability

is not imminent. Previous studies found average wind speeds

over Lake Erie of over 16 miles per hour, the strongest in Ohio.

Without subsidies, however, electricity from the pilot project

would cost an uncompetitive 23 cents per kiloWatt-hour,

as compared with 7 to 9 cents per kWh for electricity from

Ohio’s land-based turbines.

Mr Mason emphasised that the taxpayers of the county would

bear none of the costs of the turbine pilot project, which would

be alleviated by grants from the US Department of Energy,

federal stimulus money, and the state of Ohio. The task force is

pushing for more incentives at the state level to encourage the

exploitation of o shore wind. And tax credits could help attract

private investment.

The

Plain Dealer

noted that M Torres Group, a company based

in Pamplona, Spain, is talking with Ohio development o cials

about investing millions of dollars in the wind turbine project,

perhaps working out of a warehouse at the Port of Cleveland.

Mr Mason said he has talked with a half-dozen large local

companies about investing in the project. A likely booster would

be Timken Co (Canton, Ohio), already a big supplier of roller

bearings to turbine makers. The task force reported that Ohio is

home to hundreds of companies selling parts to the wind energy

industry.

❈

Cleveland Foundation president Ronn Richard acknowledged

to the

Plain Dealer

that the pilot turbine project would be a

“loss leader” – an initial outlay to be o set by future pro ts.

But he asserted that Ohio must stay out front in the race to

harness o shore wind, as interests in New York, Michigan,

and Ontario (Canada) push forward with competing

studies and projects. “We need the public and the business

community to get behind this,” said Mr Richard, whose

foundation has invested heavily in the task force e ort.

“Being second, third, or fourth will bring us nothing. This is a

well-thought-out risk.”

Aviation

Wi-Fi aloft: the in- ight movie will be an

inspirational David and Goliath story

The race to o er wireless networking Internet services to

airplane passengers has been won – not by mighty Boeing but

by another, much smaller, company, also Illinois-based. Privately

held Aircell, with headquarters in Itasca, enables airlines to o er

onboard access service within North America at reasonable fees.

And airlines including United, American, Delta, AirTran, Virgin

America, and Air Canada are speedily having it installed. AirTran

(Orlando, Florida), which charges Gogo users $9.95 for ights

under three hours, $12.95 for longer ights, will have the service

available on its entire eet – 50 Boeing 737s and 86 Boeing 717s

– by midsummer.

Writing from Boeing’s hometown, David Greising, chief business

correspondent for the

Chicago Tribune

, is well positioned to trace

the unlikely success of Aircell’s Gogo over its big rival’s Connexion

service. “At one point not long ago,” he noted, “Boeing had the

highest aspirations for the onboard access business. Connexion

by Boeing was supposed to be at the core of a ‘third leg’ of the

company, holding share alongside commercial airplanes, with

$28 billion in sales; and defense, with $32 billion.”

Alas. Connexion, which bounced signals back and forth among

satellites in space and Web-connected airplane passengers,

cost $26.95 for a 24-hour period – an awkward block of time

for travellers by air. Worse, it set a price- and weight-conscious

airline back $1 million to install the cumbersome 800-pound

machinery in a plane that had to be grounded for up to two

weeks. The service was, said the Tribune, “a non-starter.” In 2006,

Boeing gave it up, taking a $320 million pretax write-down

of its investment. (“Boeing’s Ambitions Crushed Its Wi-Fi Project,”

May)

Meanwhile Aircell, of the “pint-size corporate pro le,” quietly

went about developing the service that grew out of its founder’s

sketch of arrows pointing from an airplane to a cellular tower to

a house, and back.

Development criteria were likewise simply stated. The company

would rely on o -the-shelf technology. Its equipment would

weigh less than 100 pounds. Installation, taking a plane out

of service only overnight, would cost less than $100,000. The

system is also cost-e ective in operation. Because most of the

communication takes place in the air, Aircell can cover the US

with only 92 cell towers. The one technological drawback of the

land-based system is, of course, that it does not work on overseas

ights. This is, Mr Greising said, “a development challenge Aircell

will no doubt address as the business grows.”