I guess one question is, will the negative effects of wind-farm construction be worse than the negative effects of human carbon production on sea-life and reefs and so forth. And I'm guessing that finding an objective answer to that question is non-trivial.Good points. But a windmill in the middle of the ocean is way out of place, whereas a lighthouse is not out of place and a necessity for navigation.
There are a lot of windmills in Texas and Oklahoma in the flat lands, and they do not look too bad next to an interstate highway. But in some places they are way out of place. Residents of upstate NY have sued over excessive noise from wind farms. Have driven through upstate/Western NY and they are ugly AF and out of place.
Back to wind farms in the ocean. The "overall" negative/positive impact on marine life is hard to quantify, but during the construction phase, the noise and vibration have significant impacts on marine life.
OT: Coming to a beach near you in NJ and NY
- Thread starter newell138
- Start date
- Status
True. It would have been better if the OP elided the finger-pointing which is unhelpful to promoting reasonable discussions. But it doesn't mean those of us not politically obsessed cannot have reasonable discussion while also making (gentle) fun of all the politically obsessed folks.
Here is more from a purportedly apolitical website. I'm skeptical of the benefits of wind farms in the ocean outweighing detriments. Seem to be too many negatives of putting mechanical devices in a salt water environment and impacts on wildlife.
Meh. Government graft in NJ knows no political boundaries. Both parties are guilty of funding pet projects that do not necessarily benefit their constituents.True. It would have been better if the OP elided the finger-pointing which is unhelpful to promoting reasonable discussions. But it doesn't mean those of us not politically obsessed cannot have reasonable discussion while also making (gentle) fun of all the politically obsessed folks.
Phil Murphy strikes again . I can’t believe NJ a voted him in again.I realize some may want this on the current events board but I'm pretty sure 90% of the people on this board go to the Jersey shore on a fairly regular basis and even use electricity in their homes, so felt it was important to get the word out so at the very least people are aware of how it will effect them. Phil Murphy has quietly auctioned off the entire coast of NJ to foreign wind farm companies and they have plans to build massive wind farms off the coast from Staten Island to Cape May. They will be visible on a clear day from the beach. For those of you thinking, oh great, its free electricity, think again. Everywhere these are used, the electricity bills skyrocket to 2x or 3x what people were paying. The first one being built is down here in South Jersey and when Ocean City attempted to fight back and say, you will not be running your cables through our beaches and our towns to the generator on land, Phil Murphy took away home rule across the entire state. It used to mean that towns had final say in what happens in their town, but now, that is no longer the case. The state decides what is best. Regardless of how you feel, its important to know the facts. Read the article linked below and look at the pictures where it shows the wind farms will be located. If you want more info there is a NJBPU virtual public hearing on the topic tonight at 7PM.
Here is a link to the article
I haven't read the thread, but looking at the map of where these wind turbines are being installed, I cannot wait to see how long it takes for a ship to take one of them out. Ambrose Tower was struck by a ship, destroying it, three times...and that's when it was the only platform in the bight, and had a big rotating light on top of it visible for miles, and this was during the era of LORAN & GPS.
Let me guess, you are a Republican, right?
Heres some facts for you...
- For the U.S. as a whole, electricity prices rose 7 percent while electricity from solar and wind grew from two to eight percent from 2009 to 2017
- In North Dakota, electricity prices rose 40 percent while electricity from solar and wind grew from nine to 27 percent between 2009 and 2017.
- In South Dakota, electricity prices rose 34 percent while electricity from solar and wind grew from five to 30 percent between 2009 and 2017.
- In Kansas, electricity prices rose 33 percent while electricity from solar and wind grew from six to 36 percent between 2009 and 2017.
- In Iowa, electricity prices rose 21 percent while electricity from solar and wind grew from 14 to 37 percent between 2009 and 2017.
- In Oklahoma, electricity prices rose 18 percent while electricity from solar and wind grew from four to 32 percent between 2009 and 2017.
- In Hawaii, electricity prices rose 23 percent, while electricity from solar and wind grew from 3 to 18 percent between 2009 and 2017.
- In California, electricity prices rose 22 percent, while electricity from solar and wind grew from 3 to 23 percent between 2009 and 2017.
“We were up against Russia pushing oligarchs and others to buy media. We were even up against phony environmental groups, and I’m a big environmentalist, but these were funded by the Russians to stand against any effort, oh that pipeline, that fracking, that whatever will be a problem for you, and a lot of the money supporting that message was coming from Russia.” - Hillary Clinton
Russia and China are big puppet masters behind America dismantling its energy production. America loses energy while crushing people with sky rocking costs and making enemies rich. The Ukraine war is a direct result of enriching Putin. Now the dummies in DC are after oil from Iran and Venezuela. People have lost common sense. The green energy thing fails and fails and fails over and over and now the world plays with fire
Russia and China are big puppet masters behind America dismantling its energy production. America loses energy while crushing people with sky rocking costs and making enemies rich. The Ukraine war is a direct result of enriching Putin. Now the dummies in DC are after oil from Iran and Venezuela. People have lost common sense. The green energy thing fails and fails and fails over and over and now the world plays with fire
Elon Musk calls for nuclear power in Europe
https://nypost.com/2022/03/07/elon-...-and-pledges-to-eat-food-grown-near-reactors/
A
anon_ivydyf0amkzay
Guest
The whole wind/solar fantasy is not the panacea many would like to think it is. Solar (where it makes sense) is great as are wind farms far away from homes. The rush to shut off all reliable sources of energy not blessed by the green intelligentsia is only going to continue to make this whole transition worse. But it does make for a cool and tweet-worthy virtue signal.
Since nothing we do with solar and wind is going to mitigate climate change for decades, PERIOD, going nuclear and slowly dialing up other sources not only makes sense, but does not shock the economic system. Do this while adapting the climate changes that are INEVITABLE. (Sea level rise, for example IS AND WILL continue to happen)
Leave to France to lead the way…amazing! (72% nuclear and not beholden to ****ing none one for their energy needs)
If your electric gets moved to this grid your electricity bill will raise by 2 to 3 times. That's right, the NJ Government will get that $4 billion not you. You'll get to be a part of the pay back of that $4 billion to the electric company over the next decade.
In the end it's a good deal for Trenton and Murphy but not you. They'll tell you it's what's best for you, while they line their coffers for their pet projects. I don't mind the look of the windmills just the economics of the charade.
In the end it's a good deal for Trenton and Murphy but not you. They'll tell you it's what's best for you, while they line their coffers for their pet projects. I don't mind the look of the windmills just the economics of the charade.
Is it wrong to state the only reason this is happening is because Phil Murphy is the governor? He is the one who is responsible so he should be finger pointed at.True. It would have been better if the OP elided the finger-pointing which is unhelpful to promoting reasonable discussions. But it doesn't mean those of us not politically obsessed cannot have reasonable discussion while also making (gentle) fun of all the politically obsessed folks.
Besides here are some more facts on bird kills for you...
A
anon_ivydyf0amkzay
Guest
It’s cool to think that in the future, when we inevitably switch to another stadial, sea levels drop, and the NJNY bight is exposed, future residents will be able to visit it as a cool archaeological site!
If it was a Republican Govenor I'd be just as pissed. I don't care what they look like. I care when my electric bill goes from $200 a month to $400-$600 dollars a month. That's when you'll care and when people who can no longer afford electric will care. Some of us just do the research beforehand.
Last edited:
Agree. But my point was, that stuff goes on with pretty much all governors in pretty much all states pretty much all the time.
So complaining about it just in the context of any particular issue, or about any particular politician, just invites pointless partisan bickering. There's no demonstrable value to it and it inevitably devalues any thread where it happens (unless the real point of the thread is partisan bickering, of course
).
Agree. But my point was, that stuff goes on with pretty much all governors in pretty much all states pretty much all the time.
So complaining about it just in the context of any particular issue, or about any particular politician, just invites pointless partisan bickering. There's no demonstrable value to it and it inevitably devalues any thread where it happens (unless the real point of the thread is partisan bickering, of course
the point of my thread is to spread awareness and give a link so people can listen in on the meeting. This way when their electric bills double and triple they can't say, I wish someone would have told me this was happening. Its certainly not something you will see on the local news channel.
Which energy source do you want? Oil, Nuke, or Wind?
Oil is nasty and pollutes at a level that is killing the planet. Also, it's a source of many wars and won't last forever.
Nuke is excellent, and it does provide energy for a larger segment of the population. If the providers can maintain safety levels, it is a good alternative. The spent fuel rods remain a concern.
Wind doesn't produce enough energy to supply the population that needs it, but the trade-off is less to no pollution, and it's a renewable source of energy.
Oil is nasty and pollutes at a level that is killing the planet. Also, it's a source of many wars and won't last forever.
Nuke is excellent, and it does provide energy for a larger segment of the population. If the providers can maintain safety levels, it is a good alternative. The spent fuel rods remain a concern.
Wind doesn't produce enough energy to supply the population that needs it, but the trade-off is less to no pollution, and it's a renewable source of energy.
The Audubon society endorses the use of wind turbine generated power. I don't think the Audubon society GAF about NJ politics.
Did you read the article? It specifically says if "properly sited" Putting hundreds of wind turbines in a major bird migration route isn't really properly sited. Cape May is one of the top tourist destinations in the world for bird watchers due to this migration pattern.
While wind energy helps birds on a global scale by curbing climate change, wind power facilities can harm birds through direct collisions with turbines and other structures, including power lines. Wind power facilities can also degrade or destroy habitat, cause disturbance and displacement, and disrupt important ecological links. Placing wind projects in the path of migratory routes makes this problem worse, especially for larger turbine blades that may reach up into the average flight zone of birds that migrate at night. An estimated 140,000 to 500,000 bird deaths occur per year due to turbine collisions, which is substantial, but significantly less than deaths caused by outdoor cats and building collisions.
Audubon strongly supports wind power and recognizes that it will not be without some impact; however, harmful effects to birds and other wildlife can be avoided or significantly reduced in the following ways:
- Federal, state or local planning for wind energy in “low impact” areas where permitting can be more efficient
- Proper siting and operation of wind farms and equipment through federal and state guidelines
I have no problem with the thread topic. Just think the thread would be vastly better without all the folks injecting completely useless political demonization into it.
I read through the site @Knight Shift posted earlier. And then read through sites linked by that site. Lots of information that discusses pros and cons. I suggest everybody do a bunch of reading that isn't necessarily for or against wind-generated electricity, but just seeks to educate about the issue.
And I also suggest people ignore anybody who claims it's 100% unworkable or 100% not a problem - because, like ALL forms of energy production, there are always pros and cons, there are always tradeoffs.
While it wasn't invented yesterday, wind-turbine-based power generation is fairly new as compared to petrochemical energy production, or even nuclear power generation. By comparison to the long-established energy sources, it's still in it's infancy. So some of the problems people bring up in an attempt to shut down discussion are being addressed, or will be addressed - same as happened with many of the early (and not-so-early) problems we've experienced with oil or nuclear energy.
Incidentally, I looked at the Forbes article you linked. Then looked at all the articles the author (Michael Shellenberger) wrote for the past 3-4 years (everyone can do the same here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/?sh=b16cbb9b1b8a).
He has an extremely clear anti-renewables bias. So much so that, while one can take into consideration what he's written, in order to be objectively informed, one needs to go out and find articles that provide a different perspective that is more pro-renewables. Otherwise, one is just allowing oneself to be propagandized instead of being informed.
A 30 second look at the articles shows that CFact is not even remotely close to an objective source of information on anything. It's a 100% propaganda website.
If people are looking to confirm their leanings and biases, then by all means, read and enjoy the echo chamber. The website is basically nothing more than a right-leaning version of Huffington Post or the like.
Not a website for people who want dry, factual presentations of objective factual information.
I am in favor of every source of energy with none being the overall dominant player so that we have the ability to walk away from any of them if they get too expensive or cause problems we do not want to deal with
Yep, read the whole thing.Did you read the article? It specifically says if "properly sited" Putting hundreds of wind turbines in a major bird migration route isn't really properly sited. Cape May is one of the top tourist destinations in the world for bird watchers due to this migration pattern.
While wind energy helps birds on a global scale by curbing climate change, wind power facilities can harm birds through direct collisions with turbines and other structures, including power lines. Wind power facilities can also degrade or destroy habitat, cause disturbance and displacement, and disrupt important ecological links. Placing wind projects in the path of migratory routes makes this problem worse, especially for larger turbine blades that may reach up into the average flight zone of birds that migrate at night. An estimated 140,000 to 500,000 bird deaths occur per year due to turbine collisions, which is substantial, but significantly less than deaths caused by outdoor cats and building collisions.
Audubon strongly supports wind power and recognizes that it will not be without some impact; however, harmful effects to birds and other wildlife can be avoided or significantly reduced in the following ways:
- Federal, state or local planning for wind energy in “low impact” areas where permitting can be more efficient
- Proper siting and operation of wind farms and equipment through federal and state guidelines
You seem to be cherry picking stuff that fits your dislike of the wind farm plans and ignoring stuff that is more neutral, such as this statement from your quote: "An estimated 140,000 to 500,000 bird deaths occur per year due to turbine collisions, which is substantial, but significantly less than deaths caused by outdoor cats and building collisions."
You saying that you advocate for tearing down all man-made structures to lower the rate of bird deaths?
You're claiming that this proposed site is improper. And for all I know at the moment, it is indeed improper. But you haven't actually provided any objective data to substantiate that this proposed plan is problematic for birds in a way that Audubon would consider improper. Has Audubon weighed in about this site? If they have and they've said it's improper, that would seem more useful to know than whatever's posted at some propaganda site of unknown provenance.
Absent supporting data, why should we take your statement about it being improper as some sort of fact? Surely there must be articles that are for and articles that are against this specific proposed project (or best of all, articles that present both sides of the argument objectively).
Are bird migratory patterns utterly inflexible? Or do they evolve over time with or without human intervention - sort of like how the climate changes all the time with or without human intervention?
Or are you talking about Cap May being at risk for economic issues if birds migrate somewhere else, bypassing the wind farm(s)? In which case, there are ALWAYS people who are harmed while others benefit from any changes.
I have next to no information, based on what's been posted in this thread so far, to reach any sort of valid conclusion about this proposed wind farm project. Maybe it's the worst thing ever. Maybe it's the most wonderful thing ever.
Or maybe it's like every other energy project ever conceived, flawed and filled with inherent difficulties and hidden costs. But neither a panacea nor the end of civilization as we know it.
Me neither. I watched it twice. Inconclusive after the first viewing. Loved it after the second. The sound effects made my chimney flue rattle.
We need more time to learn about and improve all these newer technologies. Nuclear is apparently vastly less unsafe than it once was. I would think that the same will happen with renewable energy production over time.
Try stuff out and see where it can be improved over the next century. Then we can have the discussion again.
Ha. I've never seen either the current or original.Me neither. I watched it twice. Inconclusive after the first viewing. Loved it after the second. The sound effects made my chimney flue rattle.
I'm a sucker for futuristic, atmospheric movies like Dune or both Blade Runners. Could be I just like the musical arrangements, which often find their way into my Spotify/Tidal collections.
Dune was an epic, encompassing and thought provoking series of novels. I thought the earlier attempts at making a movie based on the books were pretty flawed. This one is a lot better.
He benefits and suffers at the same time.
The benefit is the view but the suffer is when the ocean has nothing to at least slow it down.
Bradley Beach has dunes (with recycled Christmas trees buried underneath) and eventually wrapped around with sea grass. Meaning the roots of said grass are kind of anchored by the old, buried trees.
They did much better than Belmar (also dune-less) and Manasquan during Sandy.
It's to replace not add to. It costs that much more to build, generate and maintain. The companies will recoup those extra costs plus the lease costs. So NJ Government will get the $4 billion and you'll be the one paying that back to the energy company. Murphy will Champion this as ground breaking, you'll be feeling his ground breaking in your wallet.
As long as there are enough existing votes in town opposing the dunes then you can afford to be neutral on the issue.
We know the way you roll.
Last edited:
While I won’t be surprised to see energy costs continue their ever-upwards climb, which existed long before Murphy or Christie or whoever was governor, I am failing to understand either the math or what people expected? Energy prices fluctuate, but the trend is always upwards.
Math-wise, if NJ is gaining $4B in income, how is that not good for NJ? Absent that $4B, wouldn’t NJ be less well off? Doesn’t it help offset NJ debt obligations or whatever?
Not sure how pricing is a governor’s fault. What’re his choices here? Refuse to lease the area, basically kicking the can down the road. Or lease it and bring in some revenue, help advance the technology some, and hopefully get us closer to figuring out how to eventually accommodating NJ’s massive energy demand without spewing more carbon into the atmosphere or producing massive amounts of radioactive waste.
Is there a third choice? I’m all for increasing natural gas production, nuclear energy production, and multiple forms of renewable energy production. Our kids are gonna need a shitload of energy.
- Status