LOCATION/TYPE

NEWS HOME


[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]

Archive
RSS

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

WHAT TO DO
when your community is targeted

Get weekly updates
RSS

RSS feeds and more

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate via Stripe

Donate via Paypal

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links

Alerts

Press Releases

FAQs

Campaign Material

Photos & Graphics

Videos

Allied Groups

Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005.

News Watch Home

The real impact of offshore wind energy transmission lines on shore communities 

Credit:  By Jim Lonergan · Published June 21, 2024, last updated September 3, 2024, at tapinto.net ~~

How many NJ residents would accept the power of 8 nuclear reactors running through their communities?

One thing is clear from the research: the size and scope of each offshore wind energy project significantly affects the outcome, risks, and answers to what are still open questions. With no history of US offshore wind farms of the size and scope Governor Murphy and the NJBPU are proposing, coupled with consistent statements by the local governing bodies, state, and county executives about the lack of transparency from Trenton or Washington DC, NJ officials and their residents are left scrambling to understand the potential impact.

A simple Wikipedia search shows three offshore wind farms operational today in the US, all located on the East Coast. The first, Block Island, RI, launched in 2016 with 5 turbines generating 30 megawatts (MW) of power. Coastal Virginia followed in 2020 with 2 turbines generating 12 MW. The latest, launched this year off Massachusetts and Rhode Island, has 12 turbines generating up to 132 MW. New Jersey has no active offshore wind farms. The proposed Atlantic Shore South Wind project spans 110,00 acres near Long Beach Island and plans over 200 turbines to generate up to 6,400 MW – vastly surpassing existing US wind farms by 16 times the number of turbines and 49 times in the amount of MW that will be generated. For perspective, Three Mile Island’s two nuclear reactors produced a combined 1,600 MW, meaning this project’s transmission lines will carry the equivalent power of eight nuclear plants through local neighborhoods of Sea Girt, Manasquan, Wall Township, and Howell.

Murphy aims for 11,000 MW of offshore wind by 2040. However, according to the most recent poll taken by Stockton University in late 2023, public support has dropped for offshore wind in NJ from 80% in 2019 to 50% in 2023, a 38% decline. The percentage who disapprove of offshore wind has risen 120 percent from 15% to 33%. In concept, offshore wind seems logical. Less land use. Renewable energy. Less dependence on fossil fuels. Yet as these projects have only now begun entering the public domain, and as more local governments and organizations have sprouted up, such as Protect Our Coast, Save LBI.org, SavetheEastCoast.org and others, it is likely those public percentages will continue to change by the time the next poll is taken.

In covering the local council meetings of the Gold Coast towns, the common theme has been the complete lack of transparency and frustration being spoken “downstream” by Biden and Murphy’s Administration to town, county, state, and congressional representatives. At the recent Manasquan council meeting, in addressing their strong opposition by the council and its residents, Mayor Mangan highlighted “through our experience, what we’ve seen is that part of the set-up of this issue at the state and federal level, is that the system itself is designed to discourage such feedback.” Council member Holly, who is overseeing this issue was more blunt “Do not trust government. This has not been given to county or local governments. This has been jammed down our throats. We all got on this council believing in transparency. We do not hide anything, but they are. Big power, big money are involved with this.”

Wind energy involves four components: offshore turbines & substations in the water; power cables to the coast; transmission lines that run over/under land through into sub-stations; and connections to the grid. This article is meant to help explain the use and risks associated with power cables in the water and transmission lines running to the grid. The visual in the photo carousel provides a picture of the components of wind energy.

Do Wind Turbines and the power cables that run from these turbines through the ocean generate heat?

Wind turbines and their power cables generate heat in several places. According to a Harvard study published in the academic journal Joule, “wind turbines cause significant local increase in surface temperatures where they are located.” The heat exchange from turbines’ cooling systems can increase localized water temperatures. Wind turbines also cause local temperature increases on the surface as they pull down warmer air from as far as 1,640 feet, warming the surface of the earth where it would impact people, plants, and animals living near the turbines. The larger the turbine and farm size, the greater the impact.” For instance, the proposed 900-1,000 foot turbines being recommended for this project are almost 170% the size of the turbines used on Block Island at 583 feet.

Power cables also generate heat. Once again, the size and scope of the projects dictate the risk level. The more power generated from the offshore turbines, the more energy is transferred through these cables to reach a defined area to connect to transmission lines. The three operational wind energy projects on the East Coast total 19 turbines, generating 174 MW. When comparing the 174 MW to 6,400 MG that this project is proposing, the massive size alone going through cables into one port should raise eyebrows. According to wind-watch.org “buried cables for offshore wind turbines can generate enough heat to raise the temperature of the surrounding ocean sediments by as much as 20°C within 1.3–2 ft of the cable. However, the depth at which cables are buried may limit the potential for the substrate to be heated”, i.e. the further they are buried and in deeper water, some of the heat risk could be reduced. But as cables move closer to the shore, depth becomes a limitation.

This raises the question: Isn’t offshore wind energy meant to reduce climate change, which is directly tied to the temperature of the earth’s surface, and particularly our oceans? The more we increase the number and scale of these offshore wind farms and transmission lines, the more we should be concerned about warming the air, changing the atmospheric airflow, and warming the ocean with the massive offshore expansion planned. It seems counter-intuitive to the green movement to reduce the warming of our oceans without considering the further expansion of cheaper alternatives such as solar, natural gas, and biofuels.

Other risks of the power cables coming from the turbines onto the land include:

Impact on marine life: A study done by the University of Rhode Island showed that since mammals use the natural Electric and Magnetic Fields “EMFs” changes were detected in their behavior. However, the studies indicated it is unlikely to cause significant risk to marine species, but it varies greatly by species. EMF levels are used in the evaluation as part of the permitting of offshore wind. Again, the scope of the project defines risk levels. The larger the scope, the higher the risk.

Supply and failure risk: The demand for these cables far exceeds supply as there are a limited number of suppliers and the number of wind farm projects on the table would require a significant expansion. Further, cables do break, and when they do, it takes significant time to repair/replace the lines, halting energy flow.

What impact does running offshore transmission lines from the shore onto land and to substations have?

Disruption: There’s the obvious: massive disruption to the local area depending on where the transmission line is starting from and where and how far it has to go. According to Energy.gov, these disruptions can last 2 or more years, depending on the length, density, population of the area and weather conditions. The ideal scenario would be an easy access point on land to start with, a clear, desolate area to run the line to, and a short path to connect to the substation and grid. In reviewing the three existing and very small operational wind farms mentioned, all were built in less populated and dense areas. As noted in part 1 of this series, the City of Long Beach NY used the densely populated area as a major roadblock to a pending offshore wind project that eventually led to the veto by Governor Hochul of the project off Long Beach in October 2023.

Risk: The less obvious, but more concerning aspect of any offshore wind project is risk, especially due to the sheer size of the project and the amount of energy that will be passed through the pipe that sits within a few feet of homes, schools, walking paths, and much more. As noted earlier, 6,400 MW of energy is staggering when compared to the now closed Three Mile Island. There is much debate in the scientific community about the potential impact of Electro-magnetic fields (EMFs) that would be emitted from the transmission lines. According to the World Health Organization, “EMF’s are considered Type 2 – possible carcinogenic” but, it goes on to say “Inconclusive, some correlation but causation isn’t proven.” After researching the potential EMF impact and trying to provide answers to questions residents had about EMF risk, it was clear that trying to answer that question is futile until a) there is definitive and unified data from the scientific community b) the data can be viewed at scale sitting in a single pipeline.

The transmission line that will run on-land will likely have several cables, all in proximity, encased in cement under the street, estimated to be 5 feet under the ground, which could change. So a core question of how many offshore wind projects across the US have been built and are operational with this amount of energy capacity AND that run transmission lines directly through highly populated and dense communities? Zero. No matter how you view the EMF risk, there would be a tremendous amount of capacity running through these neighborhoods.

Source:  By Jim Lonergan · Published June 21, 2024, last updated September 3, 2024, at tapinto.net

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial educational effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Contributions
   Donate via Stripe
(via Stripe)
Donate via Paypal
(via Paypal)

Share:

e-mail X FB LI M TG TS G Share


News Watch Home

Get the Facts
CONTACT DONATE PRIVACY ABOUT SEARCH
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.

 Follow:

Wind Watch on X Wind Watch on Facebook Wind Watch on Linked In

Wind Watch on Mastodon Wind Watch on Truth Social

Wind Watch on Gab Wind Watch on Bluesky