Surprise?
They’re not blown away by NJ’s offshore wind power plans
New Jersey is moving aggressively to become the leader in the fast-growing offshore wind energy industry on the East Coast, but not everyone is blown away by those ambitious plans.
While the state’s Democratic political leadership is solidly behind a rapid build-out of wind energy projects off the coast — it has set a goal of generating 100% of its energy from clean sources by 2050 — opposition is growing among citizens groups, and even some green energy-loving environmentalists are wary of the pace and scope of the plans.
The most commonly voiced objections include the unknown effect hundreds or even thousands of wind turbines might have on the ocean, fears of higher electric bills as costs are passed on to consumers, and a sense that the entire undertaking is being rushed through with little understanding of what the consequences might be.
Adding to the unhappiness is a bill passed by the state Legislature and awaiting action by New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy that, aside from granting them a public hearing, would remove virtually all control from local communities over where and how the power lines come ashore.
Many of the opponents, particularly in flood-prone Ocean City, say they believe climate change is real and that a warming planet and rising seas are threats that must be addressed.
And while many agree that continuing to burn fossil fuels will only make things worse, some opponents wish New Jersey would proceed more slowly and deliberately, learning as it goes.
Supposedly, building these wind farms will only raise citizen’s electric bills about $3. In other words, the reality is that this will go way, way higher. And you can bet that a lot of the opposition comes from people not wanting these giant wind turbines in their “backyards.” They do not want to look at them ruining the view. They do not want them messing with the fishing. It’s a lot of the old NIMBY, with a big dose of wind turbines being popular in theory, but not so much in practice.
A residents group called Go Green and Unseen wants the turbines moved 35 miles (56 kilometers) offshore so they will be invisible from the shore.
That’s some pretty deep water out there, and a serious run of transmission cables. I suggest NJ start by putting them up all around Trenton (the state capitol). And near the homes of the governor and state lawmakers. See how they like it.
“These first proposals off the Jersey Shore are massive and total over 1.16 million acres — about the size of Grand Canyon National Park, and a law is pending to block communities’ concerns,†said Cindy Zipf, the group’s (Clean Ocean Action) executive director.
Interesting. That latter part would violate the U.S. Bill Of Rights along with the NJ Constitution regarding protesting and redress of grievance, not too mention Free Speech.
BTW
Danish company Orsted said in a statement that it is “fully committed to growing the New Jersey offshore wind industry sustainably. Our teams have held multiple open houses and are committed to meeting with stakeholders in the community to educate them on the countless economic, environmental, and community benefits of offshore wind.”
NJ couldn’t find a U.S. company to do this?
Typical of democratic party activists. Anyone who disagrees with them needs to just STFU and color.
The Vinyard Wind Project which Teach no longer sees fit to mention is contracted to sell its power to the grid for 5.8 cents per kwh
Teach what do you pay Duke for your power ? 16 cents?
Heraldnews.com
Feb 11,2020
William Teach: That latter part would violate the U.S. Bill Of Rights along with the NJ Constitution regarding protesting and redress of grievance, not too mention Free Speech.
The law doesn’t prevent free speech, but requires all decisions be made at the state level.
Clean Ocean Action strongly supports transparency and insists environmental impacts be understood before moving ahead with the project.
https://www.cleanoceanaction.org/fileadmin/editor_group1/Issues/Wind/COA-Comments-BOEM-NOI-EIS-OceanWind-FINAL-4-29-2021.pdf
William Teach: NJ couldn’t find a U.S. company to do this?
The Danes are leading experts in wind energy. Wind provides nearly half of Denmark’s electricity. Vestas has installed over 100 GW of wind power globally. Ørsted accounts for almost a third of global installed wind capacity.
Love the misleading propaganda supplied by one of TheThreeBlindMice.
Really? What actual percentage is “nearly” half? What energy source provides backup power for the remainder?
Is that capacity or electricity actually produced? 40% of capacity is a generous estimate of the power actually produced.
Again with conflating capacity with actual electricity production.
Pretty sure the KiddieZ either will not or
cannot answer specifically these simple questions.
#SeeHowTheyRun
Bwaha! Lolgf
In 2019, Denmark produced 57% of its electricity through wind. Only 20% was with fossil fuels, 0% nuclear. Denmark was also a net exporter of electricity.
https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/4979da92-959d-41b7-9bb5-948ff5cc0224/mes.pdf
Denmark has a technologically developed economy, with high per capita GDP, very favorable human development, and a happiness index only exceeded by Finland. So it can be done.
Kiddiez: So it can be done.
And Denmark uses how much energy compared to the U.S.?
C’mon Kiddiez y’all be obfuscating the issues again.
#SeeHowTheyRun
Bwaha! Lolgf
L
Puppy boy should have checked the actual percentage of power Denmark produced
If he did he wouldn’t have been spanked so publicly
Thanks Retard, I did.
Along with the other misformation “cited” by the Kiddiez, Denmark is a net importer of electricity.
Back to your rice pudding, Johnnie.
#NeverArgueWithRetards
Bwaha! Lolgf
All:
Please ignore the puppystrangler (aka Bungholio). He is Porter’s pet troll and has yet to offer anything of value.
Rimjob, dipshit that he is, has come back for another beating.
#ThisWillBeFun
Bwaha! Lolgf
Z: Denmark was also a net exporter of electricity.
Sorry. Misread the chart. Denmark is a net importer, so we should be looking a electricity consumed.
In 2019, Denmark consumed 32063 GWh and produced 16150 GWh with wind power, so wind accounted for 50% of electricity *consumed*.
NIMBY! Even the
global warmingclimatechangeemergency worriers, who are afraid that sea levels might swamp them in Jersey shore towns, don’t want any action taken to preventglobal warmingclimatechangeemergency anywhere in which it affects them, or hurts their ocean views.The further from shore, the higher the construction and operational costs. At ten miles offshore, the wind turbines would be just barely visible, on the clearest of days.
Of course, as the warmunists push wind power, once you get inland, the wind turbines need to be at the highest local elevations, and I remember a few visible off of abysmal Route 93 leading to Hazleton, on the top of what passed for mountains in the area. Of course, that area of Pennsylvania is relatively poor, so spoiling the view of the locals didn’t matter as much.
No one is going to try and support Teach concerned about skyrocketing costs from wind power?
And I can’t see the distance offshore being very important
The only additional cost might only be the libe to hook to the grid which is a very very small cost of the project
Wind power is a joke, and a bad one. Your typical power plant is around 1000MW. The largest windmills are around 3.5MW. So over 300 are needed to cover 1 power plant’s load. That’s under ideal conditions. Power output is rated at 20mph winds, and is proportional to the cube of the wind speed. Half it to 10mph and you get 1/8 the power. Then there’s the fossil fuel used in producing the turbines themselves….
We’d be better off focusing on natural gas, hydro and nukes.
Wind power does not emit CO2 and even considering the manufacturing is carbon neutral in the long run. It is also available now as is natural gas (less CO2 pollution than coal plants). Hydro and nuclear power have their own issues as well, not the least being construction costs and duration.