Photo Credit: GE Wind Energy
article tools
Increase Text Size Increase Text Size Decreate Text Size Decrease Text Size
Share Email This Story Share Share This Story Reader comments Reader Comments (22) View image gallery Image Gallery (1) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

More Jobs
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
December 24, 2004

Offshore Wind Farms Have to Wait in New Jersey

Trenton, New Jersey [RenewableEnergyAccess.com]

Coastal communities are familiar with the possibility of wind turbines appearing on the horizon as the wind energy industry gets stronger in America. Acting Governor of New Jersey Richard Codey has decided to approach the possibility with caution, however.

"The Cape Wind project should make it pretty clear what's going on with (offshore developments). People know that wind farms aren't going to show up next week."

- Tom Gray, Director of Communications at AWEA

He signed an executive order that enforces a 15-month funding and permitting freeze on all offshore, wind energy developments, and creates a Blue Ribbon Panel to study the costs and benefits of such developments.

"Today's action ensures that no offshore wind turbine facilities will be constructed for the next 15 months off New Jersey's shore," Codey said. "The Blue Ribbon Panel will take this time to study the appropriateness of offshore wind turbines facilities. This issue raises important questions about how we will deal with global warming and air pollution levels; and how we will utilize one of our most precious resources - the Jersey Shore. It is time for us to hear from the public."

Currently, there are no offshore wind turbine projects in operation in the United States. The blue-ribbon panel will consider potential environmental benefits and impact, economic costs and benefits, and will make policy recommendations. The panel will compare such projects with other power sources in terms of New Jersey's long-term electricity needs.

Gov. Codey isn't the first to enact a freeze on wind energy development. Tom Gray, who is the director of Communications at the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), said that a similar moratorium was put into action when Vermont was considering developing its wind power potential with land-based projects. But land-based projects have a significant amount of site specific variables that should be studied before a wind development is installed, he said.

With all that has happened during the permitting process and studies for the Cape Wind proposal in Nantucket Sound, Gray said Gov. Codey's reasoning for establishing a moratorium is a bit confusing.

"The Cape Wind project should make it pretty clear what's going on with (offshore developments)," he said. "People know that wind farms aren't going to show up next week."

But the coast of New Jersey has an established tourist economy and abundant marine environment, and the protection of this resource is a primary responsibility of state government, according to the official order. A wind energy development could affect those community assets, and it is important to balance existing attributes with the state's commitment to providing clean energy sources and emissions reductions.

According to a statement from AWEA's Executive Director Randall Swisher, a recent comprehensive study of an offshore wind project in the U.S. found little or no environmental impact from the project. Numerous state environmental groups such as the New Jersey Audubon Society, the New Jersey Public Interest Research Group, the New Jersey Chapter of the Sierra Club, and the New Jersey Environmental Federation oppose a blanket moratorium on offshore wind energy development.

Though the moratorium has some people wondering how a panel study could positively affect the growth of the wind industry in New Jersey, organizations such as the Clean Ocean Action applauded the Governor's executive order.

"Governor Codey's action is a responsible and reasonable approach that sets a national model. The issues are significant, and a learned and careful study is warranted," said Cindy Zipf, who is the executive director of Clean Ocean Action.

The Governor appointed six people to the panel: Edward McKenna, who is the Mayor of Red Bank and a member of the State Planning Commission and will act as chairman for the panel; Timothy P. Dillingham, who is the executive director of the American Littoral Society; Theodore J. Korth, who is the Director of Policy for the New Jersey Audubon Society; Bonnie J. McCay, who is the vice chair of the Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee; Diane Wieland, who is the director of the Cape May County Department of Tourism; and Scott A. Weiner, who is the director of the Center for Energy, Economic and Environmental Policy at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers.
Image Gallery (1)
 
Reader Comments (22)
 
No image available
Anonymous
December 26, 2004
This is the Nanny State, one township has a permit process for phone line installation and then an inspection fee, total cost 55.00.

You can figure it out from there.
Comment 1 of 22
No image available
Anonymous
December 26, 2004
One gets the impression that there is a double standard. Never heared of a nuclear or coal plant that underwent such scrutany.
Comment 2 of 22
No image available
Anonymous
December 26, 2004
It's because of Meatballs like him,America is getting further and further behind other Nations playing the worn out Tune of the Nuke Industry, of Dead Birds and being visually offensive.
Comment 3 of 22
No image available
Anonymous
December 28, 2004
i think its a good idea, the ban. i think we should ban all wind energy. those wind mill things are so annoying and ugly. and they kill all the birds too
Comment 4 of 22
No image available
Anonymous
December 30, 2004
Actually the NJ BPU just spent $750 Million of rate payers money for a measly 300 MW of renewables by 2008. Just one of these proposed wind farms would provide 300++ MW, and the rate payers wouldn't pay for it either. Seems really stupid. $1 per month for ratepayers to subsidize alt.energy when at the same time wind farms that could generate up to 3,000 MW are being stalled.
Comment 5 of 22
No image available
Anonymous
December 30, 2004
I agree, this action seems highly suspicious. These wind farms will be so far off shore that hardly anyone will notice them. They are probably being delayed because the coal/gas/oil/nuclear industries don't want the public to catch onto the fact that Wind Power is a viable alternative. It's funny that the NJ BPU just allocated $500 Million to create 8% alt.energy in NJ by 2008, when these wind farms could make alt.energy 15% of the New Jersey electric mix, and the state wouldn't have to pay anything. Private companies would pay for it. Stupid policy to stop these wind farms.
Comment 6 of 22
No image available
Anonymous
December 30, 2004
This is purely an attempt to stall. No doubt the result of a bribe or just conflict of interest from coal/nuclear/oil industry or others.
Comment 7 of 22
No image available
Anonymous
January 1, 2005
With millions of citizens developing asthma annually, what will it take to get our government and citizens to realize that oil is killing thousands of citizens a year from its pollution, let alone that it is a limited commidiity that is reaching its limits of production to get it out of the ground and to our fuel pumps. Will it take long lines at the fuel pumps to wake this country up?
Comment 8 of 22
No image available
Anonymous
January 2, 2005
The fact that the NJ BPU and state government are stalling 3,000 MW of private renewable wind energy, while using ratepayer money to build other renewable energy is an example of the arrogant attitude of those who rule us. As if they care how many are being killed by oil. Wind companies want to pay for 3,000 MW and the state is trying to stop it. The big utilities don't want a bad example to be set that demonstrates to the public that alt.energy can be produced on a large scale with private investment.
Comment 9 of 22
No image available
Anonymous
January 2, 2005
Perhaps the world will figure it out after the US, Russia and China annilate each other in a nuclear war over the remaining few drops of oil.
Comment 10 of 22
No image available
Anonymous
January 3, 2005
Not only wind should be banned, but also those contentious other power sources, fossil fuels, hydro, solar shiners, biomass, waste-to-energy conversion, etc. They all contribute pollution or unsightliness.

Instead, let's just stop using power. If manual work was good enough for Adam and Eve, it should be good enough for the rest of us!

Pragmatist
Comment 11 of 22
No image available
Anonymous
January 4, 2005
I have designed/invented a series of Vert.
Axis Wind Turbines, New form of Power Transmission That will have none of the inherent problems, associated with current technology. That will not impact on the environment.I am looking for financing to build a prototype of the system, which can stand alone, be clusterd, also in hybrid configuration, will not effect marine life, in any manner, or migratory flyways.
Comment 12 of 22
No image available
Anonymous
January 4, 2005
Rock-head_NJ has most of his facts wrong.

No wind developer would attempt an offshore project without public subsidy from the state. And none have applied, unless you consider the three guys behind a desk at Winergy a wind developer versus permit speculator.

The $750m is not "spent" its planned for next four years for the Clean Energy Program and is devoted 75% to EE and 25% to RE. The 25% includes subsidies for which wind is eligible (see CEI's 7 MW project in AC). And additionally, a good portion of the production would be subsidized through ratepayers via the RPS.

Cape Wind has taken twice as long to get thru as the moratorium so lets relax and enjoy their process first.

Yo, Rocky taken too many to the head?
Comment 13 of 22
No image available
Anonymous
January 4, 2005
I know the location of the proposed Cape power project off Cape Cod very well -- I boat there every summer. It's a pretty area and many will use "pretty", pristine, and precious as reasons to NOT make a project like this.
Seems it might be the same for this NJ project, I see the claim for the 'maritime' and 'save the whales' set about ready to kick in. But the other options -- other sources or energy, will one day cause those large houses on the NJ shore to go dark and it's only then that we'll get some action in another energy source...
This guy in NJ should have some balls and make a stand and be an innovator. I kinda think the windmill off on the horizon is kinda cool... just like Altamont Pass, really cool driving through it...
I guess some people don't like Windmills... sure beats a belching smokestack or a nuke's cooling tower, in my opinion.
Comment 14 of 22
No image available
Anonymous
January 5, 2005
Dear Mr. Paper:

Only 25% of $750m over 4 yrs. is devoted to renewables rest to energy efficiency. Aint a lot of near term RE in NJ, PROVEN biomass or on-shore wind (where are those demonstrated low wind speed or urban wind turbines?) pretty much leaves solar, lfg, and off-shore wind to meet the goals for clean kwh's. If you want to talk about research and development, wouldn't that be more appropriate to occur at the federal level? vs ratepayers! The only thing the offshore wind speculators have demonstrated that no bonding requirements exist to submit an application with the Army Corp of Engineers. When confronted with a bonding requirement in VA, Winergy's 500 applications dwindled to 10. The moratorium is a political response with little downside to problem that the Pew Center on Oceans uncovered about 8 months ago. No one is on watch! NOAA, ACE, NWFS, DOI, DOE? state's, who's jurisidiction is it again? If offshore wind were a no brainer, why isnt there any?
Comment 15 of 22
No image available
Anonymous
January 5, 2005
If Winergy isn't for real, then why is the state so concerned about them that they are slapping a 15 month moratorium on wind development? I'd think if the state thought they were a bunch of speculators who weren't serious, then the state wouldn't act in such a manner.
Comment 16 of 22
No image available
Anonymous
January 5, 2005
Perhaps Winergy isn't for real. But, let's give them a shot to prove that they are real or not. Even if they are speculators, they have demonstrated that the potential for 3,000 MW of exists off the coast of NJ. It seems like something the state should be promoting, not discouraging, especially when they're ready to spend $750 Million of our rate dollars on RE. I applaud their effort to promote RE, but why discourage other RE that would be developed by the private sector? The Winergy article I read said the wind turbines would be built with private financing. I'm sure Winergy will take state subsidies if they are offered, but at this point that doesn't seem to be what they are proposing to use for finance capital.
Comment 17 of 22
No image available
Anonymous
January 7, 2005
Rock_nj, says it looks cool. There's also a company in Mass. that has developed a different sort of wind generator that uses a tower with rotating flaps, instead of the big blades. Apparently it's a lot better for birds and generates the same electricity.
Comment 18 of 22
No image available
Anonymous
January 7, 2005
There is a wind energy technology that solves the problems of the proposed large bladed turbines. ENECO has a technology called WARP (Wind Amplified Rotor Platform) that eliminated the large bladed turbines, minimizes ant bird kill, uses a smaller foot print to generate the same energy, does not disrupt the sea bed (can be designes as a floating and/or tension legged system -- therfore be deployed further from the coast in any water depth. Check it out at www.warp-eneco.com.
Comment 19 of 22
No image available
Anonymous
January 10, 2005
The bird issue has been investiageted endlessly.
The results of these scientific are all the same. Bird-kill by windturbines is absolutely negligable compared by other human activities.

If you want so save birds:
-place predator silhouet stickers on the windows of your high rise buildings
-Travel by bike for short distances
-Don't have a cat as pet
Comment 20 of 22
No image available
Anonymous
January 11, 2005
I have to say, wind energy is the future. Wind is a clean and infinate resource. I have to say I would rather see turbines all over the place then see the skies turn dark gray. The bird issue has been reseached and more birds are killed by buildings in one city than wind farms worldwide, so... level all the cities? And I agree, don't own a cat.
Comment 21 of 22
No image available
Anonymous
April 12, 2005
Wind energy is not clean. Turbines can change the atmosphere heat and wind direction altering the soils moisture levels. Needing more precious water to maintain crops or altering insect and birds habitats. Also the concrete used to create the base causes a massive amount of Carbon Dioxide when created.
Comment 22 of 22
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
Featured Total Access Partners
Click company logos to learn more
Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition The Stella Group, Ltd. OPEL Solar, Inc. SolarCraft Spire Corporation National Semiconductor
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo