It’s a fact, wind turbines will degrade the marine environment in Ventnor. That’s according to a May 2023 BOEM environmental impact study.
BOEM: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is responsible for America’s offshore energy and mineral resources.
Hundreds of 1,000 ft turbines are slated for operation just off the South Jersey coast by 2030.
Ventnor Mayor Lance Landgraf: The environmental impact report tells us that these wind turbines will negatively impact the environment in Ventnor. It says that in the document. How can they move that forward? Their answer was: leases have already been sold. The State already sold leases without looking at that (finding).
Mayor Landgraf: This is extremely frustrating. Many towns finally starting to push back. But I don’t think our feedback will have much impact.
Soon, New Jersey will be reliant on a non-US company for it’s energy needs.
Foreign energy company Ørsted now has 100 percent ownership of this taxpayer subsidized, wind energy project. PSEG recently sold their remaining 25% stake.
Is it too late to stop wind energy project? The State and Fed are clearly pushing forward no matter what the negative impact.
Note: Longport Mayor Nick Russo and Atlantic City Mayor Marty Small both support experimental wind farm off the coast of Absecon Island.
Thanks to Deputy Longport Mayor Dan Lawler for representing best interest of Longport residents:
Landgraf: BOEM Environmental Impact Report specifically admits that wind turbines will have negative impact on the environment in Ventnor.
Watch video from June 8, 2023.
I propose that we implement a temporary hold or permit suspension on the construction of wind turbines in order to investigate whether their installation would pose a risk to the safety or survival of marine mammals and other Sea wildlife, such as whales, dolphins, etc. This will help us make informed decisions that align with our commitment to environmental preservation.
I sure would like to know what exactly “negative impact” means before I decide where I stand on the subject. The mentioned “negative impact” could be minor relative to destroying our environment by continuing to burn fossil fuels.
I sure would be helpful to have all the information before scaring the public. Perhaps council should read the part relating to the ” negative impact to Ventnor” and report on that.
I agree. No details just fear mongering. Specifically, how are the turbines going to damage the Ventnor environment?
Documents directly related to the projects, such as BOEM’s Ocean Wind 1 Offshore Wind Farm Environmental Impact Statement also acknowledge, based on scientific research, the expectation of injury to marine mammals during all phases of OSW work. This information can be found at https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/renewable-energy/state-activities/OceanWind1-DEIS-Vol1.pdf Appendix L, Table 1. Page 1017
I tried to find it in report. I found two properties would have visual impact. I too would like to know details. I believe benefits outweigh negatives.
At 6200 long, I think the gist of the idea is that everyone needs more time to review. But documents directly related to the projects, such as BOEM’s Ocean Wind 1 Offshore Wind Farm Environmental Impact Statement also acknowledge, based on scientific research, the expectation of injury to marine mammals during all phases of OSW work. This information can be found at https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/renewable-energy/state-activities/OceanWind1-DEIS-Vol1.pdf Appendix L, Table 1. Page 1017
Marine Mammals:
“• Increased risk of injury TTS (temporary hearing loss up to one week) or PTS (permanent hearing loss) to individuals due to underwater noise from pile-driving activities during construction
• Disturbance (behavioral effects) and acoustic masking due to underwater noise from pile driving, shipping, and other vessel traffic, aircraft, geophysical surveys (HRG surveys and geotechnical drilling surveys), WTG operation, and dredging during construction and operations
• Increased risk of individual injury and mortality due to vessel strikes”
On page 319 of the same report noted above: “Summary of noise impacts: Considering the extent of offshore wind projects planned in the geographic analysis area (Appendix F), it is likely that underwater noise impacts sufficient to cause adverse effects on marine mammals could occur. Noise generated from other offshore wind activities includes impulsive (e.g., impact pile driving, UXO detonations, some HRG surveys) and non-impulsive sources (e.g., vibratory pile diving, some HRG surveys, vessels, aircraft, cable laying or trenching, dredging, turbine operations). Of those activities, only impact pile driving, UXO detonations, and, to a lesser extent, vibratory pile driving could cause PTS (permanent hearing loss)/injury-level effects in marine mammals.
Ocean Wind 1 COP summarizes their study results on the effects of underwater acoustic modeling of installed turbines by emphasizing their stunning lack of knowledge on the effects. “Importantly, no measurements exist for these larger turbine sizes and few measurements have been made for direct drive turbines so the uncertainty in these estimates is large. The frequency and sound level generated from operating WTGs depends on WTG size, wind speed and rotation, foundation type, water depth, seafloor characteristics, and wave conditions (Cheesman 2016, Elliott et al. 2019). C-17
In addition to the marine ecosystems these projects are problematic for several reasons. A full accounting can be found at https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/renewable-energy/state-activities/OceanWind1-DEIS-Vol1.pdf Appendix L.
Ocean Wind 1 COP summarizes their study results on the effects of underwater acoustic modeling of installed turbines by emphasizing their stunning lack of knowledge on the effects. “Importantly, no measurements exist for these larger turbine sizes and few measurements have been made for direct drive turbines so the uncertainty in these estimates is large. The frequency and sound level generated from operating WTGs depends on WTG size, wind speed and rotation, foundation type, water depth, seafloor characteristics, and wave conditions (Cheesman 2016, Elliott et al. 2019). C-17
Marine Mammals:
“• Increased risk of injury TTS (temporary hearing loss up to one week) or PTS (permanent hearing loss) to individuals due to underwater noise from pile-driving activities during construction
• Disturbance (behavioral effects) and acoustic masking due to underwater noise from pile driving, shipping, and other vessel traffic, aircraft, geophysical surveys (HRG surveys and geotechnical drilling surveys), WTG operation, and dredging during construction and operations
• Increased risk of individual injury and mortality due to vessel strikes”
On page 319 of the same report noted above: “Summary of noise impacts: Considering the extent of offshore wind projects planned in the geographic analysis area (Appendix F), it is likely that underwater noise impacts sufficient to cause adverse effects on marine mammals could occur. Noise generated from other offshore wind activities includes impulsive (e.g., impact pile driving, UXO detonations, some HRG surveys) and non-impulsive sources (e.g., vibratory pile diving, some HRG surveys, vessels, aircraft, cable laying or trenching, dredging, turbine operations). Of those activities, only impact pile driving, UXO detonations, and, to a lesser extent, vibratory pile driving could cause PTS (permanent hearing loss)/injury-level effects in marine mammals
Sadly, King Phil the Governor is pushing for this as it is considered green energy.
It sounds good in theory but the reality is that this needs to be paused and studied first.
The fall out could be wiping out marine life and that is bs.
What can the residents do to support the members fighting to stop these windmills.
Join protectourcoast or savelbi on fb to start. There are many other groups working to stop these destructive projects. There are also many efforts from writing legislators, attending rallies or helping to raise funds for legal actions.
So, what happens when eletric bills go up 3%, 5%, 10%, or more? Will the state subsidize the cost? I’d like to see the 20 yr. price chart.
So what do you recommend to replace the energy generated by the turbines? Burn coal or oil? Nuclear energy has radioactive waste issues. Would you rather have a small nuclear plant in your community.? Wind energy is infinite and clean. Do you not believe in global warming? Wind energy projects also create good paying jobs. Fastest growing job sector. Land based wind and solar are actually now the cheapest sources of energy now. You can lock into a 20 year rate with a wind turbine. Do you not think oil prices will never fluctuate or rise considerably with global unrest over the next 20 years? Again, what do you propose as an alternative?
I’m an independent. But this issue feels political. Is it a Republican vs. Democrat issue? Feels that way.
Please read up on Nuclear as an option. The waste created is significantly less than decommissioning these monstrosities in 20 years.
Nuclear technology has advanced significantly and is extremely safe.
Yes, I would prefer to have a nuclear plant at the BL England site than 3500 1,000 ft turbines in our ocean.
BOEM has stated these offshore wind projects may not impact the rate of climate change. It’s all about killing whales for oil (again).
The simple answer is Democrats = Wind Turbines.
That’s not to say Republicans don’t take the $$.
Regardless of which side you support, there are questions that need answers before they start the project.
For example, the turbines have a 25 year life expectancy. Who pays to remove them when they are obsolete?
We can’t afford to find out a bad answer to a question after they are built.
At that point, it’s too late.
If land based wind and solar are actually now the cheapest sources of energy, why not locate an area inland to place the turbines, etc? Why must we disrupt and adversely impact the ocean ecosystem?
Thay are the cheapest source until you remove subsidies and operation of base load energy. Add in decommissioning costs and those options are significantly under water.
It’s great to see this information being shared. To the people who refuse to see the facts – please read it for yourselves. Denise kindly laid some if it out.
Also remember these are bigger, closer and more in numbers than anywhere so there is no true data.
Millions or billions of $’s has already changed hands through ‘donations’ that would normally be illegal or at least conflicts of interests.
Please wake up and realize these short term, polluting, oil and fossil fuel dependent coastal ecosystem destroyers need to be stopped before it’s too late.
Where are the numbers for fossil fuels used to install, build, maintain and decommission these things. They’re already outdated.
It’s not worth the risk, we already see the death and more is coming. It’s all in their paperwork…