This issue of offshore wind farms off the coast of New Jersey has generated lots of attention and opposing opinions.
Proponents argue it is a source of clean energy that will create jobs and help combat climate change. Opponents counter with concerns for its impact on marine life, tourism and fishing industries, and its cost to consumers.
Like many, I initially believed the offshore wind projects proposed off our coast sounded like a good idea with the expectation of as many as 3,000 new jobs during development in addition to full-time permanent jobs in operations and maintenance.
We were told many of these jobs would require the same skills as those in aviation maintenance, thus aligning offshore wind with our efforts to develop the aviation industry and diversify the regional economy.
My only stipulation was that concerns about the impact of offshore wind on tourism, marine life, and fishing and boating, be satisfactorily addressed so the majority of residents and businesses could feel comfortable to move forward with these projects.
Numerous reports have since been issued with some conflicting data serving to continue the debate and controversy.
Most recently, a lawsuit filed by eight shore towns, including Brigantine and Ventnor, in opposition of the Atlantic Shores project, was struck down by a Superior Court judge for having no legal standing.
Personally, I have my own very serious concerns about these projects, but as county executive, I do not rule by decree. I represent the interests of residents from all 23 municipalities.
Four of the five Atlantic County shore towns have voiced their opposition to the offshore wind projects with only Atlantic City standing in favor of them.
I, along with the Atlantic County Board of Commissioners, am being publicly called out by some opponents for our “indifference.” I assure you, our issue is not indifference but in having definitive facts on which to base our decisions that will impact the residents of all 23 municipalities who we collectively represent.
Opponents of offshore wind wonder why we are not taking the same stand as Cape May County officials to prevent these projects and send the developers packing. But contrary to popular belief, Cape May County may only enjoy a temporary reprieve.
Orsted still maintains its lease for two projects. It apparently decided not to continue to fight all the negative publicity regarding economic and environmental damage after the mammals started washing ashore.
High inflation, rising costs and supply chain issues also contributed to Orsted’s decision to walk away. It is interesting to note that in Europe, 79% of new wind capacity last year was built onshore, not offshore.
Onshore wind farms, like the one we constructed and maintain at the Atlantic County Utilities Authority, are significantly less expensive.
Federal regulators have now approved new regulations to help fast track the offshore wind application and approval processes.
Perhaps President Biden and Governor Murphy should have insisted on regulation standards and guidelines for offshore wind projects based on authorized impact studies before they pushed their agendas.
Such regulations could identify the size, quantity, distance from shore, implementation methods, permissible locations of transmission lines, etc., and do so in cooperation with the local governments and industries (tourism, fishing, boating) they directly impact.
Thank you for a balanced, clear set of comments – not fueled by opinion, emotion and belief masquerading as “facts”. My concern is that those MOST concerned about (unproven) impacts of windfarms seem just fine with the long known and actually PROVEN negative effects of gas and oil as the status quo.
Well done, sir. Balance… what a concept.
Look up Virginia Beach windmill project
I did. Last Oct., 2023, VA received “key federal approval” to proceed with its enormous wind farm, leaving the taxpayers with limited oversight (Dominion objected to most taxpayer safeguards), but on the hook for ALL COSTS.
Even if NJ’s wind farm is smaller with different regulations, I see no upside for either ratepayers or the environment. Here are excerpts from the following websites.
https://apnews.com/article/virginia-beach-climate-and-environment-796b1256c2bedee36abc258e46eaefc4
Published 2:16 PM PDT, August 5, 2022
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — State regulators on Friday approved an application from Dominion Energy Virginia to build an enormous offshore wind farm off the coast of Virginia Beach and recover the cost from ratepayers.
Regarding costs, the SCC (VA State Corporation Commission) order said that over the wind farm’s projected 35-year lifetime, including the construction and its 30-year projected useful life, a typical residential customer is expected to see an average monthly bill increase of $4.72, with a peak monthly bill increase of $14.22 in 2027.
“To be clear, total Project costs, including financing costs, less investment tax credits, are estimated to be approximately $21.5 billion on a Virginia-jurisdictional basis, assuming such costs are reasonable and prudent. And all of these costs … will find their way into ratepayers electric bills in some manner,” the order said.
Dominion said in a news release that because offshore wind turbines have no fuel costs, the project is expected to save Virginia customers more than $3 billion during its first 10 years of operation. [How?]
https://apnews.com/article/business-richmond-virginia-climate-and-environment-5ee03b8502c150223b65c153694bde13
Published 5:05 PM PDT, December 15, 2022
In its order, the commission (VA State Corporation Commission) also issued a warning about the impact the project will have on the electricity bills of Dominion’s captive electric utility customers.
“The magnitude of this project is so great that it will likely be the costliest project being undertaken by any regulated utility in the United States. And the electricity produced by this Project will be among the most expensive sources of power — on both a per kilowatt of firm capacity and a per megawatt-hour basis — in the entire United States,” the order said.
Wind Turbines in our oceans…are you kidding me? Why are we industrializing our greatest asset? Part of the trouble with climate alarmism is that it encourages short-term thinking around what is a long-term problem. I think radical decarbonization is possible but it is easier to imagine in a context that involves a significant expansion of nuclear energy and natural gas and the phase out of coal before the phase out of oil occurs. Please read Alex Epstein’s “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels”. It is stellar.
For decades, environmentalists have told us that using fossil fuels is a self-destructive addiction that will destroy our planet. (I often think, “I don’t see in the data what you are telling me I’m supposed to see” – and I think, ” Why are thee brightest minds and scientists UNINVITED to the climate discussion?”) Censorship is NOT done by secure people.
Fossil fuels are a self-destructive addiction that will destroy our planet? HUH? By every measure of human well-being, from life expectancy to clean water to climate safety, life has been getting better and better. We are hearing only one side of the story. On that note – this big climate picture includes Globalists – or as I refer to them – Super Psychopaths. Their argument is NOT with fossil fuels – it is with nature and the real world. deep breath. sigh.
Enter Geoengineering aka Stratospheric Aerosol Injections and please steer away from the trigger word “chemtrails”. Googling chemtrails is a trap. I will save more on that topic for another piece.
The Myth: Fossil fuels are unsustainable, so we should strive to use “renewable” solar and wind.
The Truth: The sun and wind are INTERMITTENT, UNRELIABLE, fuels that always need backup from a reliable source of energy- USUALLY FOSSIL FUELS. There are huge amounts of fossil fuels left, and we have plenty of time to find something cheaper.
The Myth: Fossil fuels are hurting the developing world.
The Truth: Fossil fuels are the key to improving the quality of life for BILLIONS of people in the developing world. If we withhold them, access to clean water plummets, critical medical machines like incubators become impossible to operate, and life expectancy drops significantly.
Calls to get off fossil fuels are calls to degrade the lives of innocent people who want the same opportunities we enjoy in the West. So, what do we do? We don’t think that our voice matters-but it does. Contact your senators, congressmen, state reps – everyone! and share your concerns.
States are waking up Hoorah! :
-Tennessee passed Housebill 2013 and SB 2691 prohibiting Geo-engineering experiments 4.1.24
-Kentucky Senate Bill 217 introduced to prohibit Geo-engineering 2024 -companion legislation to Kentucky HB506 to prohibit Solar Radiation Management and Geoengineering
-Illinois SB 3095 Weather Modification Act introduced 2024
-New Hampshire HB 1700 introduced
-The Rhode Island Clean Air Act Preservation Act H 7295 2024
-South Dakota SB 215 introduced to prohibit weather engineering
-South Carolina HB 5390 amend bill relating to unlawful discharges of air contaminants whose purpose is to affect temperature, weather and sunlight intensity
THAT’S OUR DIRE CLIMATE CRISIS.
Please contact: americans4acleanatmosphere.com
and/or director@zerogeoengineering.com
🌼
Extremely disappointed in the county executive and commissioners. I will not be supporting or voting for any of them who do not take a firm position on stopping the industrialization of ocean. Beginning to doubt that they are Republicans at all. What good are they for letting us down in this major issue? Wake up!!!
“It is interesting to note that in Europe, 79% of new wind capacity last year was built onshore, not offshore.” Then let’s do this instead of ruining our ocean!