Regarding the recent Press editorial, “State preempting local roadblocks to wind energy helps NJ, especially Ocean City”:
The editorial is full of many of the misperceptions about the 100 planned (in the first phase) wind turbines in the ocean off Atlantic City and Ocean City. It says the “wind turbines might be barely visible some days from the shore.” There will be 100 structures 15 miles off the coast that will each be the height of an 80-story building. The large buildings of New York City or Chicago may be seen from a distance much greater than 15 miles.
The editorial seems to assume that everybody is for green energy, so Ocean City must be resisting the cable bring it ashore to extract something from the state or the developer. On a website, 10,980 people have signed a petition to stop this specific project.
The thousands of jobs supposedly will be created by this project. These jobs are being paid with government subsidies (paid by NJ residents through utility bill fees) and ratepayers paying much more for wind-turbine electricity.
The editorial doesn’t address the ecological effects of building 100 massive structures in the ocean on marine life, fishermen (commercial and recreational) and Jersey Shore tourism. The plan to industrialize the ocean by turning it into a power plant needs a two-sided discussion. The romantic notion of green energy is appealing. I think the name implies it must be low cost since it harnesses nature to produce electricity. But green energy’s bloated cost and negative side effects have to be considered, too, in order to make an informed decision. Everybody wants to do what’s right for the environment, but let’s be smart about it.
The Ocean City Council has done its homework. That is why they are pushing back on the state of New Jersey stripping them of their right to govern themselves in this matter.
|Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding