RUTGERS: Offshore Wind Turbines Will Hurt Atlantic City Area Fishing

RENDERING: Wind farm seen off beaches of South Jersey

According to a recent Rutgers study, offshore wind farms could damage 25% of Atlantic City’s fishery.

Clammers and scallop fishermen fear a shrinking patch of fishable ocean will lead to the collapse of the industry.

Dangerous Navigation. Vessels must avoid towering turbines within the massive wind farm maze, some just 8 miles offshore. Sub-stations could be even closer to shore.

Fishing boats will need to steer through rows of turbines that are 900 ft tall, in addition to the rock beds supporting those structures. Power lines buried beneath the seabed could disrupt the trawlers dragging for surf clams.

Stone Harbor Rendering

Opponents to NJ offshore wind worry it will damage fisheries

New Jersey will be the first, major offshore wind farm in the US. Currently, there are two small wind efforts in both Rhode Island and Virginia.

New Jersey’s Offshore Wind War: Fisheries vs Risky Energy Source?

New Jersey was awarded the largest leasing area for experimental offshore winds farms. The wind farms could dominate the fertile fisheries off the shores of Brigantine, Atlantic City…. all the way to Stone Harbor.

Nine offshore wind lease areas off the New Jersey coast could eventually contain 1,410 turbines.

Rutgerys study on Atlantic … by WHYY News

Damage could be greater for the industry based out of Atlantic City, which could see 25% losses.

Jersey Shore’s fishing industry wonders: Can it coexist with planned massive wind farms?

27 thoughts on “RUTGERS: Offshore Wind Turbines Will Hurt Atlantic City Area Fishing”

  1. Not only will it hurt the fishing industry, but it will also hurt tourism by degrading the ocean view.

    1. Can you see the Ocean casino from 8 miles? EACH wind turbine is slated to be this big! Not be able to see them from the beach?…..come on now. In fact, do your homework and look up how far away you can see an 850+’ tall object at sea level…..its a pretty easy calculation.

  2. If I’m not mistaken, the turbines are 8 miles or more from the shoreline. That’s going to be degrading the ocean view and impacting tourism? You can’t possibly be serious.

  3. Margate Charlie

    By no means am I a clean climate follower but claiming turbines 8 miles out is going to ruin the view or the fishing industry is absurd. Maybe they should harvest oil right from the ocean floor and build a huge electrical producing turbine on a platform instead. Them Tesla’s aren’t going to power themselves.

    1. I do not know why there are not more wind farms and wave energy capture.
      I like to see the 4 wind turbines going into AC. Much better than having a coal mine.
      More wind farms please !

      1. yes….100 windmills at a taxpayer funded cost of $1.6 billion (prior to overruns) makes infinitely more sense than running a $90 million gas line to the BL England plant. Face it, we are having this forced on us by a governor that wants NJ to be “the California of the east”.

        1. No impact to fishing, birds or wildlife from nuclear ? Yeah. Just ask the people from Chernobyl and surrounding areas. Think some people are complaining about windmills? Just wait until you try and push nuclear.

        2. Guessing the people of Chernobyl, and nearly Three Mile Island wish they only had to worry about the impacts on fish, wildlife and birds… and you think people are concerned about windmills and things as benign as the view 8 miles out to shore?

  4. Here in RI the fishing has improved near the turbines. Future layouts have taken commercial fishing recommendations into account when siting the windmills.

  5. Anyone who doesn’t think that wind turbines 8 miles off shore won’t be visible from land didn’t take a trigonometry course. I can mathematically guarantee the turbines will be visible from the beach.

  6. Does viability 8 miles away translate to disrupting tourism as the first poster responding suggested? Hardly. Be reasonable.

      1. Impacts on tourism WON’T be seen because the degradation of the view from 8 miles or more out is irrelevant. It’s like saying a supermodel isn’t attractive because she has a mole on her arm.

        1. Of course, this is only your opinion, as you don’t have the ability to predict the outcomes on tourism, rentals markets etc., however, here are some facts:
          You can EASILY see the Ocean casino from the route 152 causeway, a linear distance of 9.3 miles. The hub height of a Haliade-X windmill is 220m, or 721.88 ft. An object that is 721.88 ft. tall, is visible at a distance of 52.96km or 32.88 miles. This is at sea level and the visible distance increases with elevation. Not much to dispute here.

          1. Again, you can talk all of the math you’d like. The simple fact that remains is no one is avoiding coming to the beach because of a view 8 miles or more away. Tourism has been UP even since the advent of drainage pipes for sand reclamation directly on the beach. Dispute that…

  7. Ridiculous analogy. If I were looking to buy or rent an ocean view property, I would definitely pick the pristine view over looking at wind turbines.

    1. 8 or more miles away is really that problematic for you ? Yeah, I guess that’s why the sales and rental markets are both at all time highs, huh? Oh well, more property for everyone else, Stewart.

  8. “the advent of drainage pipes for sand reclamation directly on the beach”
    The pipes drain storm water runoff from the streets…nothing to do with sand reclamation.
    “The simple fact that remains is no one is avoiding coming to the beach because of a view 8 miles or more away”….of course you have some factual data to back this up, or this just more rhetoric?

    1. Its simple. Look at property vales (insanely high). Look at time properties are on market before they sell (shortest levels in years).

      Look at new construction permits (off the charts). Look at tax revenues fueled by new construction and demand, creating a surplus.

      Look at added regulation either in place or proposed (like Ventnor) regarding short-term rentals (like TOURISM). All of which all point in the same direction — there is all time high in demand and values, irrespective of your worries of impacts from the view of windmills over 8 or more miles away. So endeth the lesson.

      1. Everything you cite is past history with still pristine views. Being able to see wind turbines from the beach in the future will change everything. Any buyer or renter in the future will take one look at the no longer pristine views and take their money elsewhere.

  9. No, it’s CURRENT reality. You just choose to be ignore it. 8 MILES AWAY. 42,000 feet.

    “Mommy, daddy, we want to go to the beach.” No kids, there are windmills waaay out in the distance, so we won’t take you. Yeah, that’s reality… in your mind. YOU don’t want to go because of windmills, then don’t go. The masses will continue us to come, in record numbers.

    1. I’m afraid you missed the point. We do not CURRENTLY have wind turbines off our coast, so all the activity you cite has no bearing on the future. If our views are marred in the future, then there will be a significant change in our competitive position versus shore towns with unfettered views. If you don’t believe me, please ask any shore based real estate agent what their opinion is on this matter.

      1. Didn’t miss ANY point. Nothing has affected tourism to date. You keep ignoring that. And I AM a real estate agent, and I have no inventory as properties sell so quickly, for more than asking. Your delusion of a pristine beach being wrecked by a view 8 miles away is just silly. Plenty of other things directly affecting the beach have been described affected nothing. Move if you’re here and don’t like it. Don’t buy or rent here here if you don’t. It will be more to satisfy the demand of everyone else.

        1. You are still absolutely missing the point. You continue to discuss CURRENT conditions. We all agree that current conditions are good and I am very happy to have doubled my property value over the last 4 years. The point is the FUTURE. That is why tens of thousands of homeowners have joined organizations like Protect Our Coast, to fight the government proposals concerning offshore wind turbines. I’m not against wind energy, just the choice of location.

  10. Here’s the humor in this Stewart. Other people counter your points with long histories of no impacts on tourism and skyrocketing interest in Margate by every measure. And your counter is based on your opinion of what you think the future will bring. And you’re obsessing over the phrase “pristine views” when so many factors make the current situation far from pristine… with no ill-effects on tourism and finances.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.