Group argues wind power a win-win for region
By DAVID NAHAN/Sentinel staff
OCEAN CITY — If opponents of wind farms 15 miles off the coast of southern New Jersey are worried about the impact wind turbines will have on the tourism economy, fishing and the environment, why didn’t they ever speak up about the pollution from the B.L. England coal-fired electricity-generating plant sitting right across the bay in Upper Township?
Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club, asks that by way of pointing out what he views as the hypocrisy of people who are against green energy.
“Where were these people when you had a dirty coal plant polluting Ocean City? We fought that plant since 1998,” Tittel said. “We helped get them closed. We went after them under resource review as a major source of pollution. Where were these people then? It’s OK to get a dirty coal plant, a diesel plant spewing particulate matter and pollution into Ocean City? They didn’t seem to have a problem with that.”
Tittel said the Sierra Club went to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) back in 1998 because the owners had upgraded the plant and violated new source review provisions in the Clean Air Act.
He said the company expanded the operation without cleaning up the plant, which violated the Clean Air Act.
“I didn’t see these people there when we did that, or when the state came up with a plan to close the coal plant,” Tittel said of the groups arguing against wind farms. He added he didn’t see them fighting more recently when the plant was going to be repowered with natural gas via a pipeline through the Pinelands.
“There’s a lot of hypocrisy here,” Tittel said. “It’s OK to have a dirty, polluting coal plant but windmills 15 miles off the coast that will bring thousands of jobs to the region, that’s something you oppose?”
As for the negative impact opponents assert the towers and transmission cables will have on recreational and commercial fishing, he questioned why fishermen weren’t complaining about the B.L. England plant where only one of three generating units had a cooling tower.
“That plant was killing hundreds of thousands of fish every year. Why weren’t they complaining about that?”
Ørsted’s Ocean Wind project proposes to bring up to 99 853-foot-tall wind turbines to an area 15 miles off the coast between Brigantine and Stone Harbor.
The Atlantic Shores Offshore Wind project proposes a wind farm just north going up off Long Beach Island.
Opponents argue the stanchions holding blades 350 feet long will discourage tourism because visitors won’t want to see the windmills on the horizon and that property values also will decline as a result.
Tittel disputes that fear, saying they won’t be looming over the shoreline and that opponents are discounting the value to people who care about the environment and support wind power.
“They’re going to be far enough out that you’re not going to see them with the curvature of the Earth and the haze we have down at the shore with evaporation and other things; they’re not going to be visible from the beach,” Tittel said. “You might see them from a building on a clear day but we don’t have that many clear days, especially in the summer.” Each turbine, he said, would “look like a big pencil.”
He believes public officials, such as those on Ocean City Council who have been speaking out against the wind farm, and other opponents “are coming at it like climate deniers and the flat world society because you’re not going to see them. The other thing is that it would increase certain tourism.
“People would like to go out there and see these giant windmills. They’ll be some of the largest off the coast. People would go out to watch for marine mammals and then go see the windmills. There are tours that go out to the windmills off Rhode Island right now,” Tittel said.
He noted when the Atlantic County Utilities Authority first built the small wind farm in Atlantic City, people staying at the Borgata would request rooms that faced the farm. The ACUA Jersey-Atlantic Wind Farm has five 380-foot turbines that can generate 7.5 megawatts of power.
“I think, intellectually, it will be a curiosity. People will want to see these giant stanchions with massive blades. I think people will actually want to take a boat out there to look at them. I think that could encourage tourism in the region.”
Tittel said he was aware of the Rutgers University study being cited by opponents that the impact of the wind farms on fishing and fish stocks in the Mid-Atlantic Bight Cold Pool is unclear because the cold pool off the coast is different than the cold pools in Europe where other wind farms are locate.
However, he said the stanchions and foundation holding the turbines could increase fishery stocks.
He said that includes new habitat along the bottoms and the stanchions themselves will attract mollusks, plankton and kelp and other things. “The stanchions are going to act like artificial reefs,” he said.
“I have not seen anything in any studies that there would be any harm. Again, some people are grasping at straws, quite frankly,” Tittel said. “There are people who think windmills cause cancer.”
Tittel also noted that the state and federal government were careful when they were choosing sites for wind farms to make sure they’re not in the middle of fisheries or in the canyons further out. “It’s a relatively flat part of the (Continental) Shelf. A lot of study has gone into where these are going.”
Tittel also disputed fears about electromagnetic fields (EMF) being created via the power transmission lines.
He said there are already hundreds of transmission lines off the coast, through the beaches and through the streets.
“I’m not saying I’m not concerned with EMF, but if you’re picking on a windmill cable coming into shore, what about all the other electric cables?”
Opponents of wind farms also note studies that show hundreds of thousands of birds are killed each year by windmills, but Tittel said that is a misnomer.
He said they’re pointing to a lot of data from 25 to 30 years ago from a whole different set of windmills with smaller, faster-spinning blades in the middle of a migratory bird route.
The massive blades proposed on the Ørsted turbines move slowly, allowing birds to avoid them, and the wind farm will have sonar detectors that will stop the turbines if a flock of birds passes through.
Opponents also claim the wind farms are in the migratory bird flyway off the coast, but Tittel said that flyway is 3 to 5 miles off the coast and the wind farm would be 15 to 20 miles off the coast.
More than that, he said, turbines are not a major danger to birds.
“You know what the biggest killer of birds is? It’s climate change,” he said. “The other two biggest killers of birds are power lines in the air and cell (phone) towers. I don’t hear them complaining about cell phone towers … windmills are not even on the list.”
The Sierra Club of New Jersey president also said opponents are making a false equivalency by claiming any net carbon savings from wind power are offset by the construction of the wind turbines. “What about the steel that goes into pipelines for gas or all the steel that goes into building a power plant?”
Tittel said not only will there be a carbon reduction by using clean wind energy, but the turbines will also cut air pollution. “Fine particulate matter from gas-fired power plants and nitrous oxide are a major health impact to people who have asthma and to children and people with respiratory problems,” he said.
Going back to his initial assertion of the hypocrisy of opponents, he said, “These people aren’t complaining about the particulate matter coming from B.L. England causing their kids to have asthma attacks but they’re complaining about offshore wind.
“When you look at the life cycles of windmills, it’s such a net benefit. It’s the most cost-effective and reliable way to produce renewable energy and it’s going to be a boon to south Jersey from the jobs it’s going to create to build and maintain them.”
He also said southern New Jersey would benefit from having the transmission lines in this part of the state because it will help prevent blackouts during the summer.
“Having that (electricity) come onshore at the B.L. England site will help prevent blackouts for places like Ocean City because the (power) grid in south Jersey is old and it is hard to get power coming the other way. Having power come in this way will actually prevent them from having blackouts in the summer which is something else I don’t think they realize. They seem to be myopic.”
He pointed out that more than 70 percent of New Jersey residents support offshore wind power.
He also noted while the Sierra Club supports all wind projects, it did not specifically support Ørsted’s bid to build the wind farm.
“We don’t get a dime from any of the wind companies,” he said. “I can’t say for other groups but I can say that for us. I get tired of that. Are they getting paid by the Koch Brothers (who own pipeline companies)? … To make a specious attack like that I find highly insulting. We are the oldest and largest environmental group. We are supported by our members and some foundations.
“When Ørsted asked us to support this project because there was other competition (to build a wind farm on the site), I said no because we support all wind projects,” Tittel said. “We don’t pick any individual projects. We want to see competition. We want to see multiple projects.
We support wind but we didn’t have a specific position to support this (Ørsted) project.”
Tittel said New Jersey residents face a choice: more pipelines and power plants or offshore wind.
“If you think about the economic impacts of offshore wind, and the positive environmental impacts, you have to realize wind is a win-win.”
