Wind on the Great Lakes, studied but not built

I. Why the lake is still empty

Offshore wind you have read about, off Long Island and New Jersey, sits in salt water. The Great Lakes are fresh, cold, and they freeze. Lake ice can shove against a turbine foundation (the base that anchors the tower to the lakebed) with a force Atlantic projects never face, so a lake turbine needs a sturdier, pricier foundation. There is no fleet of freshwater turbines anywhere to copy from, which means nearly every part of a lake project would be close to first-of-a-kind.

So the state studied it. NYSERDA, the state's energy authority, produced a Great Lakes Wind Feasibility Study (a state-funded assessment of whether lake wind can be built and at what cost), delivered to regulators around 2022. Its finding was measured: wind in Lakes Erie and Ontario is technically feasible and the resource is real, but the cost and the hurdles are high enough that the study did not recommend rushing to build. That conclusion, more than any single objection, is why the water is empty.

II. The honest math on cost

Compare the options a ratepayer is actually paying for. Upstate land-based wind, on Tug Hill and along the Alle-Catt ridgeline in the western Southern Tier, is among the cheaper new power the state can add, and Niagara hydro through the New York Power Authority is cheaper still. Atlantic offshore wind, which the state's climate law leans on for a target of roughly 9 gigawatts by the mid-2030s, has a supply chain forming on the coast. Freshwater lake wind has none of those advantages yet.

The numbers here move, so treat them as directions rather than fixed points. At last public report, estimates put lake wind well above land-based upstate wind per unit of energy, on the order of a real premium rather than a rounding error. Until a demonstration project proves an actual cost, any figure you see is a projection, and projections for first-of-a-kind projects tend to run optimistic.

III. Who says no, and what would change their minds

Opposition to lake wind is local and specific. Charter captains and walleye anglers worry about their fishing grounds; the lakes carry heavy commercial shipping through defined lanes; shoreline residents raise the viewshed (what you see when you look out at the water); and both Erie and Ontario sit on one of North America's busiest bird migration corridors, so wildlife groups press hard on collision risk. The one nearly-built example, the long-delayed Icebreaker demonstration in Ohio's Lake Erie, spent years in court and drew a permit condition to idle its blades at night for birds, which shows how sharp the wildlife fight can get.

Supporters, including parts of organized labor and some developers, argue that a demonstration project is exactly how costs come down and questions get answered. What would change minds is concrete: a sustained drop in offshore construction costs, a working freshwater pilot to learn from, or federal money that closes the gap. Absent one of those, the state's calm position holds, and the studying continues on purpose.

IV. Worth watching this month

1. Watch NYSERDA's Great Lakes Wind page for any new solicitation or study update; none is scheduled at last public report, so treat quiet as the status quo and not a signal.

2. Follow Department of Public Service filings in the state's offshore wind proceeding for anything that reopens the Great Lakes question, which would be the first real sign of movement.

3. Check the NYISO interconnection queue (the waiting line of projects asking to plug into the grid) for any lake-sited wind project; there were none at the last public queue, and one appearing would be genuine news.

4. Track the Icebreaker demonstration in Ohio's Lake Erie for a construction start or a cancellation, since it is the closest thing to a built freshwater project in the country.

5. Watch NREL for refreshed Great Lakes wind resource or cost figures, which are routine research and not by themselves a sign that anything will be built.