In reference to the Herald front page story March 4 on the presentation by the Orsted spokesperson, Kris Ohleth, who extended the Orsted talking points. Included was a presentation by Joseph Fiordaliso of N.J. Board of Public Utilities (BPU), the taxpayers’ (our) advocate?
Some information that did not make their presentation was:
In addition to the $1.6 billion contract, what is the suggested contract guaranteed profit although the wind is variable? Are the grid connection costs guaranteed not to exceed?
The projected 3 million customers benefitting from the wind farm, demand that our newly minted representatives legislate that the Orsted or N.J. BPU provides a monthly report of the design megawatt output to the actual megawatt output?
What is the documented lifecycle of the turbines, 10 or 20 years?
Is the de-commissioning cost at the end of the turbine lifecycle part of the $1.6 billion tax dollars contract?
The “clean” presentation dismisses the fact that the turbine/blades are not recyclable.
The article did admit that wind is variable so that “negative” fossil supply is required. That “negative” fossil generation depends on a higher operating output requirement for economic and CO2 efficiency. The lower demand for fossil fuel, the higher the CO2 emission.
At the end of the article, Fiordaliso stated, “Is it more expensive? …yes.” European farms averaged 30 to 35% higher bills.” Followed by his statement, “Let’s look at the economic benefits of wind.” Higher bills?
He also stated, manufacturing will benefit by a return of jobs to the state. Really, with higher energy costs? Those costs have to be added to any produced, transported goods.
With the mention of jobs, I would think that only approved union members will be hired.
In closing, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Australia learned negatively the costs of “free energy,” as stated in the Australian Assembly. “What did we have before green energy? Their answer, electricity.”