Wind Turbines At The Jersey Shore: An Eyesore Isn’t The Real Issue + The G.O.P.’s Dumb War on Green Energy
via boem.gov — turn your head slightly to the right and you won’t even see them…
“LIKE THE VIEW?”
asks NJ STATE REP. JACK ciattarelli
I don’t know much about New Jersey Governor candidate, Jack Ciattarelli.
I know he looks the part of a politician. If you asked AI to draw up a Republican, New Jersey, Italian politician, it would probably produce Ciattarelli’s headshot.
According to his website, his calling card is “Bringing common-sense solutions to kitchen table problems.”
Love it.
I looked up “kitchen table” issues for Jersey folk and found the following:
Leading the nation in Outmigration
High property taxes
Cost of living and inflation
Flooding
The Jersey Devil, back on the loose, feasting on feeble youths
—common concerns—
What reared my head Jack’s way was a propeller plane advertisement gliding along the 130-mile shoreline of New Jersey in Brigantine in late August.
L I K E T H E V I E W ? ?
V O T E J A C K 4 G O V
N O W I N D T U R B I N E S
J A C K 4 G O V . COM
I was surprised that I hadn’t heard anything about it, before my day trip to the shore, but that may have been because I’m a PA resident living in my own world…. who knows… so in checking in on the backlash and watching a few news reports, my first perception was a gaggle of cranky complainers more so than a Republican mission to destroy the offshore wind project.
But understandably so, there’s some heavy debate and media coverage on the matter. The Jersey Shore has been relatively unaffected for over a century. The last true “interruption” was probably the invention and implementation of the boardwalk.
Some of the chatter via Fox 29 Philadelphia:
"You’ll be able to see them quite well. They are only eight and a half miles, but they are a thousand feet tall," says Robin Shaffer, the President of Protect Our Coast NJ.
His organization is fighting against the plan. He says the view of turbines from the beach is the least of his concerns.
"It’s going to destroy livelihoods. It’s going to hurt the fishing industry across the state of New Jersey. It’s going to hurt small business owners. It’s going to hurt our property values," he added.
Atlantic Shores Wind declined an on-camera interview, but tells FOX 29 the project is expected to create up to 50,000 new jobs, have a $2 billion economic impact and be the environmental equivalent of taking 800,000 cars off the road every year.
Three groups are suing New Jersey to block an offshore wind farm
New Jersey seeks fourth round of offshore wind farm proposals as foes push back
4 new offshore wind power projects proposed for New Jersey Shore; 2 would be far out to sea
Any time there’s a big C H A N G E in an institution like the Jersey Shore. Anytime something may affect the quality of life, even if it’s only a view, it’s bound to have a political ripple effect that politicians will use as a ploy to sway voters.
My question is this:
Will the 195+ WIND TURBINES planted 8 to 15 MILES OFF THE ATLANTIC CITY SHORELINE, that APPEAR AS SMALL WHITE CROSSES in the distance and POWER 1 MILLION HOMES, ultimately KILL ENOUGH SEAGULLS TO NEGATIVELY EFFECT THE QUALITY OF OCEAN WATER WASHING TO SHORE?
Making Headlines
Will these offshore wind turbines be beneficial to the environment? Absolutely.
Will it also have negative effects on nature at the same time? Will bird migration and ocean life be impacted? It’s quite likely.
Will it burden the view and experience at the shore of families who have found peace, comfort, and community on these Jersey beaches for generations? Nah, not really.
We’re talking about a big ole buttload o’ green energy.
Even for the Saudi Arabia of Wind ( which APPARENTLY is New Jersey ) this is a lot of verde lightning.
For scientific scale, it’s exactly twice as much as a cheek load. It’s the whole butt.
Further of scale, these turbines should power 1 million homes… there are 20,000 housing UNITS in Atlantic City. Wind turbines are good… they’re ugly, hugely scary, and noisy… so placement is key.
From NBC 10 Philadelphia:
The tallest of these (wind turbines) could reach more than 1,000 feet into the sky, including the twirling blades.
Those 1,410 turbines (coming to the shoreline) make up only a portion of the thousands expected to be erected in the next decade in the Mid-Atlantic off states from South Carolina to Massachusetts.
Gov. Phil Murphy is one of the nation's strongest supporters of offshore wind as "a core strategy" to wean the country off fossil fuels. He has set an aggressive goal of 7,500 megawatts in offshore wind by 2035.
via offshorewindca.org
STILL, THE QUESTIOn REMAINs…
Will the water quality be affected? Here’s what AI had to say. It’s not directly related to bird deaths and water quality, so it appears the question remains unanswered.
The question needs to be answered, but it’s almost as if it’s being ignored.
Ocean water is already gross but a rapid increase in dead birds HAS to have some sort of effect. Unless there aren’t that many birds that are being killed by offshore turbines.
Will it be a “level” situation? Like the level of rodent feces in your favorite bag of chips.
“The FDA permits "rogue condiments" in food, which includes rodent filth. For potato chips, the FDA allows for "rot" at a level of less than 6% of pieces by weight.”
Editor’s Note: 6% is a lot!!!! And I’m still going to continue eating cool ranch Doritos… I’m gross.
Perhaps there would be more outcry if this was happening in other areas of the country where offshore wind was already put into place, like Virginia and Rhode Island, where three wind farms are currently operating. However, those wind farms are 20+ miles offshore, whereas Atlantic City wind is proposed to be only 13-15 miles out to sea.
Beyond that, I don’t think a slight eyesore far in the distance that can be avoided by turning our heads slightly one way or another should stop this level of renewable energy production. I go to the shore every year and the renderings don’t seem bothersome at all to me. The natural ocean breeze and the rustling of waves shouldn’t be drastically affected by the turbines and, as a whole, they are not expected to change the seashore experience we all love so dearly.
It’s time to take the United States into the next generation of clean energy, and with it, change will come. It’s time to embrace the obvious good, while pushing back on some of the ridiculousness.
If bird guts are to affect the water we swim in each Summer, maybe take those turbines somewhere else.
If not, then let’s get over the eyesore aspect.
But on a much larger scale…
bipartisan Disappointment if trump kills green energy
via NY Times
Mr. Ciattarelli believes that President Trump will reverse many green energy projects. He doesn’t just believe it, it’s nearly a certainty. It’s an effort that will likely bring forth bipartisan fury, as both Republicans and Democrats have benefited from the surge in green energy since Obama took office. The U.S. is 2nd in the world (behind China) in green energy production.
The United States has 202 offshore wind farm projects of which 3 are currently operating, 1 where construction has progressed enough to connect the turbines and generate electricity, 2 are in the build phase, and 10 are either consented or have applied for consent, the rest are essentially blueprints. ( via 4coffshore.com )
I suppose we’ll see.
Trump’s obsession with gas or “liquid gold” as he likes to call it, is not a bad thing. Getting the U.S. back on top as a producer and exporter of oil and gas is incredibly important from a global economic standpoint. Plus, it’s not like gas-powered cars are going anywhere anytime soon.
That being said, gas and green energy are not mutually exclusive.
His stubbornness in this regard is ego-driven and plain old dumb when looking at it from an economic and environmental standpoint.
From the New York Times:
The Clean Energy Boom in Republican Districts
Randolph County, a rural square of green woods and farm fields in the middle of North Carolina, is the unlikely home of one of the biggest electric vehicle battery projects in the world.
Over the past two years, Toyota has announced a series of expansions that could invest more than $12 billion in the area, where it owns a manufacturing plant.
It’s part of the biggest announced investment — a total of $17.6 billion — that any congressional district has received since the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, according to E2, a nonprofit group that collects data on clean energy projects tied to the bill.
Over the last two years, Biden’s landmark climate bill has ushered in more than $120 billion in announced investment across the country, per E2, supercharging spending in a burgeoning clean energy industry — think batteries, electric vehicles and solar — largely through tax credits.
In Randolph, most of that money has pooled into the tiny, 2,650-person town of Liberty, where the only chain restaurant is a Subway attached to a single grocery store. Once dominated by the textile industry, Liberty had seen “minimal industry” until Toyota came to town in 2021, said Scott Kidd, Liberty’s town manager. Liberty is now sandwiched between the Toyota plant and a $5 billion semiconductor manufacturer in a neighboring county.
President-elect Donald Trump has promised to repeal the I.R.A., and despite the more than 330,000 jobs that could result from the law, swing states that got billions from the plan like North Carolina still moved toward the G.O.P. in 2024.
In Randolph County, 78 percent of voters cast their ballot for Donald Trump. The area’s congressional district is led by Rep. Richard Hudson, a Republican who won his re-election bid in November after closely aligning himself with the MAGA movement.
The Effects of the Inflation Reduction Act
Many Americans still have not heard much about the Inflation Reduction Act, which is expected to pour as much as $1.2 trillion into the U.S. economy over the next decade.
“We didn’t lose the election because of the I.R.A., but we also didn’t win because of it and we should have,” said Lena Moffitt, executive director of Evergreen Action, a climate nonprofit.
But rolling back such investments could be a challenge for red states — about 85 percent of the announced investments from the bill have come in Republican districts, according to E2 data from August.
“We’re at the advent of an economic revolution the likes of which we haven’t seen in this country in generations,” said Bob Keefe, executive director of E2. “If it gets rolled back or reduced, it’s not liberals that’ll be hurt, but working people in rural places.”
More than half of 900 clean energy companies surveyed by E2 in October said they would lose business or revenue if the I.R.A. was repealed. Businesses in rural America would suffer the most, according to the survey.
Energy production and exportation — GOOD
Cleaner air and water — GOOD
Less reliance on fossil fuels, more diversified energy portfolio — GOOD
Don’t be Petty, Donald.
Be a President.
MOre From
The Feel Vol. 3
