NJ Offshore Wind Power Project Clears Permit Hurdles

An offshore wind project near Atlantic City has taken another step towards being the nation's first offshore wind power venture after it cleared federal regulatory hurdles.

Offshore wind developer Fishermen's Energy now has permission to build six offshore wind turbines a few miles off the coast of Atlantic City, the company said, announcing it won its final federal permit.

Fishermen’s Energy, a coalition of fishermen seeking to supply alternative energy, said the project got a Clean Water Act permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

That follows several important permits the project got last year from the state Department of Environmental Protection after a public comment process.

The demonstration-scale wind farm would be built just 2.8 miles from the Atlantic City boardwalk, far closer to the shore than other proposals. Its turbines could produce up to 25 megawatts, capable of powering about 10,000 homes.

It's not the only company hoping to build: last year federal officials announced plans to fast-track offshore wind, and eleven companies filed to stake a claim and construct clusters of huge turbines in federal waters 12 miles off the coast of New Jersey.

Those much larger proposals include a farm off the coast of Avalon proposed by Garden State Offshore Energy and a project by Bluewater Wind off the coast of Cape May.

This particular project is much closer to the shore than the other larger projects, which makes it cheaper to build but increases the potential complaints from those who don't want to see them so close to shore (NIMBY types who complain it would mar their views of the ocean or adversely affect their businesses near or at the shore).

It awaits obtaining sufficient funding before construction would begin.

Here's hoping that they can show these offshore projects can be done in a fiscally prudent manner since this is a huge untapped source of energy and potential profits for the state, businesses and utilities.

Building for the Future - Expanding Wind Power Manufacturing In NYC Metro Area

Wind power, and more specifically, offshore wind power, has the potential to generate renewable energy and manufacturing jobs. There are several projects that are in the planning phase up and down the East Coast, including Massachusetts and New Jersey that would build major wind power facilities offshore.

Locating facilities where the parts are made is a daunting task, particularly when you understand the size and complexity of the parts needed to make a single wind turbine. We're talking about parts that cannot easily fit on a tractor trailer. Some of these structures can be hundreds of feet tall and need massive equipment to erect.

In fact, it makes sense to build such a manufacturing facility next to an existing rail link and in close proximity to an existing port facility to reduce manufacturing and shipping costs of the end products. That's why Poland's legendary Gdansk shipyard (birthplace of the Solidarity movement) has gotten into manufacturing of wind power systems.

A major cost in their manufacture is their problematic transport, and the decision by Gaardbo's company GSG Towers to invest 250 million zlotys ($73.48 million) in production in Gdansk was largely based on the advantage of being able to load the tubes directly onto ships in the old free city's harbour on the Baltic.

"It is the perfect place for this; as they say, location, location, location. About 30 per cent of the cost of wind towers is transport," he says.

"We are proud to be helping this historic site. Maybe it's because I am an outsider I have to admit that I feel deep responsibility for the people and this place."

The yard, spread over a series of islands and canals in Gdansk's historic town centre, employed as many as 20,000 workers in its heyday in the 1970s and 80s and was almost a town in its own right, with bars, buses and shops.

Much of the period since has been one of struggle for the city's ordinary working population and the shipyard's reinvigoration is a symbol of the investment which has made Poland one of Europe's few recent economic success stories.

That the Gdansk shipyard found new life in wind power suggests that a similar venture could have tremendous economic potential in the New York metro area.

That means a port like New York/New Jersey could be home to a wind power manufacturing facility. It could reduce time to install new wind turbines and become a major player in refurbishing and repairing existing turbines.

There are several parcels within the New York/NJ Port that could be suitable for building wind turbines, including locations in Sunset Park, Brooklyn or Port Jersey. The Brooklyn Navy Yards might be a suitable location though it lacks the rail connections of the other locations and is constrained due to redevelopment of significant portions of the site to other purposes.

Consider that GE sought to build a $100 million plant in the UK, which would generate 1,900 jobs to support an offshore wind turbine factory. A similar facility in the New York metro area would have a tremendous spinoff capability, enabling still more economic development around wind and renewable energy facilities.

At a time when the Port Authority and New York City is looking to redevelop portions of the waterfront away from manufacturing or shipping, this has the potential to generate new jobs and economic development and shouldn't be overlooked.

New York Losing Interest In Offshore Power Projects

New York has pretty much lost interest in offshore wind power projects, and a proposed project 15 miles off the Rockaways has all but been shelved.

First announced in 2008 and endorsed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the massive offshore wind farm was set to start spinning by 2015. Currently, it is sputtering.

Jonathan Foster, the vice chairman of the New York Power Authority, whose chief executive officer just resigned, said the project is not at the top of the agency's priority list.

"At this point, with our leadership somewhat in flux and having also announced two other major projects, the Hudson Transmission Project and also Recharge New York, we've got a full plate," said Foster.

It has been more than a year since the Power Authority got approval to apply for a federal lease on the ocean floor, but they have yet to apply.

The authority also just withdrew a key application with the state's independent power operator.

A spokesperson could not give a timeline for the project and called the application premature, and said environmental and economic studies are ongoing.

Large-scale offshore wind projects have had trouble gaining traction in the United States. Advocates say it has mostly to do with economics and a lack of enthusiasm for wind power.

New Jersey has several proposed projects in the works, and it will be interesting to see if the impending hurricane changes minds - for or against.

Wind and Solar Power Projects Thwarted By Red Tape; NIMBY Preventing Transmission Line Projects

Accelerating the construction of wind power and/or solar power projects around the country requires having not only the proper sites to take advantage of the wind or sun, but access to transmission lines to deliver the power to where it is needed.

Texas is a huge market for wind power, but much of that capacity is untapped because of opposition to building new transmission lines.

The lack of transmission lines — and the relatively low price of natural gas — has thwarted the ambitions of wind-power advocates to expand the use of this alternative energy source in Texas. The oilman T. Boone Pickens, for example, bet heavily on wind a couple of years ago, ordering hundreds of turbines and announcing plans to build the world’s largest wind farm in the Panhandle at a cost of up to $12 billion. He later scaled back, canceling some of the turbine orders, giving up his land lease and saying he was looking elsewhere to build.

To encourage others, the state is moving forward on a contentious project to erect $5 billion worth of transmission wires to connect the turbines to the cities that need power. On Thursday, state regulators met in Austin and approved the route of a controversial line that will run about 140 miles through the Hill Country, one of the state’s most scenic regions.

Construction of the line — a project of the Lower Colorado River Authority that will run from Schleicher County to a substation near Comfort — should start next year. Last year, vigorous opposition, by landowners, wealthy newcomers and old-time families, succeeded in derailing plans for another line that the state had wanted to build through the area. Instead, the existing electric infrastructure will be upgraded to carry a greater load. The Public Utility Commission, which is overseeing the process, has also canceled plans for an additional segment of the Hill Country line discussed at the meeting Thursday.

“All Texans love their land,” Barry T. Smitherman, the commission chairman, said in an interview a few days ago. During the process of planning the routes for transmission lines, Mr. Smitherman said, “we didn’t please everyone, but I think with each of these we really tried to work hard to make it as acceptable as possible for the landowners.”

Texas embarked on the transmission line project, known as Competitive Renewable Energy Zones, several years ago. The need was clear: in West Texas, home to the vast majority of the state’s wind farms, so many turbines have been built over the past decade that some must be shut down during windy periods because there are not enough wires to transport the power. Texas is the leading wind-power state by far, with nearly three times as much capacity as the next-closest state, Iowa. Once built, the new lines are expected to span more than 2,300 miles.

The Hill Country is not the only part of Texas where resistance to new power lines has been fierce. Landowners near Palo Duro Canyon State Park in the Panhandle also put up vigorous opposition. Their arguments against one of the proposed lines prevailed, so it will be built elsewhere and not cross the dramatic canyon landscape. Nonetheless, another line could still go across the canyon. Residents of Denton County, north of Fort Worth, worry that a proposed line could cross landmarks like a park area called the Greenbelt or a Girl Scout camp.

The arguments against the transmission lines mirror those of the wind turbines or solar collectors - that their presence mars the landscape.

Then, there's the issue of red tape in getting permits and approvals to build solar power projects. The amount of bureaucracy and red tape to build solar power projects - including retrofits on existing buildings, is curbing wider acceptance and implementation because of the added costs.

Going Green: Empire State Building Inks Wind Power Deal

Owners of the iconic Empire State Building have been making major investments in the building's infrastructure to improve its desirability to class A tenants, which command higher rents.

It has begun a process of improving the building's HVAC efficencies, and has retrofitted insulated glass panels that reduce heat transmission and make the building more efficient.

Now, it has inked a two-year deal to purchase wind power to cover the energy costs for the building.

"It was a natural fit for us to combine 100% clean energy with our nearly completed, ground-breaking energy efficiency retrofit work," building owner Anthony Malkin said.

And what's good for the environment is expected to be good for business too, he said.

"Clean energy and our nearly 40% reduced consumption of watts and BTUs gives us a competitive advantage in attracting the best credit tenants at the best rents," Malkin said.

The ESB will be buying its power from the Green Mountain Energy Company.

The wind power buy is more of a publicity issue than the real heavy lifting done by reducing the energy footprint of the building by retrofitting all the windows in the building with high efficiency glass panels while retaining the building's classic exterior.

T Boone Pickens Dumps Wind Power From His Energy Plans

T Boone Pickens, the Texas tycoon who made a splash with a plan to wean the US from foreign oil imports through a combination of wind power and natural gas plays, has dumped wind power from his touted plan.

That's due in large part to the failure to secure transmission line access for his proposed wind power projects in Texas.

Oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens' TV commercials blasted the airwaves in 2008 with his big idea to get America off foreign oil imports: natural gas and wind energy.

Two years later, let’s just make that natural gas.

Since the billionaire’s plans for the world’s largest wind farm fell apart in the Texas Panhandle, Pickens has edited his much-hyped “Pickens Plan” to focus primarily on his other big business interest: natural gas.

Touting 1.7 million Pickens Plan supporters, he’s now pushing Congress to pass legislation that would offer incentives to convert 18-wheelers and fleet vehicles to run on compressed natural gas, or CNG, rather than diesel. He said if just 8 million of those trucks switch to the domestic-produced fuel, it could cut in half the amount of foreign oil imported by the United States.

“I’m all American,” Pickens said on Friday. “Any energy in America beats

The US could see significant improvement in fuel economy on long haul tractor trailers (18-wheelers) even before new EPA rules take effect if they adopted any number of aerodynamic adjustments that can improve fuel economy significantly for relatively little cost.

Pickens' plan would serve to boost Pickens' bottom line, and converting vehicles from diesel to natural gas would impose hefty costs on vehicle owners; improving aerodynamics would be a greater savings at lesser cost.

Proposed NJ Legislation Would Kill Wind Power Projects Across State

A proposed bill by a South Jersey Republican State Senator, Sean Kean, would have the effect of killing wind power projects around the state because of its overly restrictive language that would prohibit the construction of wind power projects within 2,000 feet of a residential zoned property.

Considering that the state is the most densely populated in the nation, finding properties that would be ideal for wind power projects that aren't within 2,000 feet of a residential zoned parcel would narrow the number properties to such an extent that it would essentially kill the industry.

I don't think that this bill has much of a chance of being passed in New Jersey, and it again highlights that NIMBY trumps everything including environmental concerns. Opponents to wind power projects routinely cite the potential damage to migratory birds and the noise generated. Some will even claim that the wind power turbines cause all manner of mysterious ailments:

The bill (S2374) would not affect proposed off-shore wind power projects, which would usually be a longer distance from shore. While the state Energy Master Plan calls for the lion’s share of wind power to be generated off shore, environmentalists say everything counts in developing clean, renewable energy.

"Our off-shore wind potential is much greater than our on-shore wind potential, but beggars can’t be choosers," said David Pringle, political director of the New Jersey Environmental Federation. "We shouldn’t be putting unnecessary restrictions on this resource."

Kean (R-Monmouth) drafted the bill after a proposed 325-foot windmill by Department of Military and Veterans Affairs at the National Guard training center in Sea Girt drew protests from hundreds of residents concerned it would threaten birds, cause noise, pose health risks and decrease property values. The Sea Girt council in September passed a resolution opposing building the turbine on the state-owned land.

While his bill faces an uncertain future — Assembly Environment Committee Chairman John McKeon (D-Essex) says he doesn’t plan to give the lower house version a hearing — Kean says it shows there can be considerable blowback from wind projects.

The bill says it is meant to prevent "wind turbine syndrome," in which close proximity to a turbine allegedly causes a host of health problems, including insomnia, headaches and learning disabilities. But the science behind the phenomenon, first published in a study by Dr. Nina Pierpont, is heavily debated.

"I don’t know what wind turbine syndrome is. I don’t think there’s any scientific basis for that claim," said Fred DeSanti, a consultant for The Bayshore Regional Sewerage Authority, which is building a windmill slated to begin operating in January at a treatment plant in Union Beach, Monmouth County. "It’s a fan that blows in the wind and creates electricity. This is not some alien device."

The article uncritically claims that a study found close proximity to wind turbines caused wind turbine syndrome, but a search of medical literature found no such references. Instead, it's from a woman who opposes wind power projects near her Western New York home and came to her conclusion after studying all of 38 people in her area (10 families). If this were truly a study that found causality, it would have been conducted according to rigorous protocols. Other studies have found that while a segment of the population is sensitive to certain low sounds (infrasound), wind power projects do not produce those sounds in sufficient volume to cause the said problems.

This is yet another attempt to kill an industry and deployment of technologies that improve air quality, reduce pollution, and reduce reliance on foreign sources of energy.

Here's hoping that this bill dies a prompt death in the Senate.

Opposition Lining Up Against Google's Offshore Transmission Line Project

Who can possibly be against the offshore transmission line project that received major backing from Google yesterday? Environmentalists.

They think that the transmission line will end up bringing power from cheaper coal powered facilities up the East Coast, rather than power from offshore wind power projects that are still in development and several years from being operational. They figure that it will undercut the development of alternative energy projects in New Jersey.

It's an argument that has been made before with regard to other transmission lines that are sorely needed to upgrade and add redundancy to the power grid along the East Coast.

It's also an approach that has had some success, but it comes at a cost of not providing a modern power grid or the redundancy to deal with power outages or issues with existing transmission lines.

Opposition is also coming from groups looking to build wind power projects themselves, because they see competition down the road and want to forestall the competition until they've established themselves.

These opponents ignore the fact that wind power projects are unlikely to get off the ground if they don't have an easy way to link up with the power grid, and an offshore cable is just the thing to ease the siting and link concerns - to say nothing of the added costs of building a new land-based connection for each project.

Google Backs Major Offshore Wind Power Grid Project

Google is putting its money on offshore wind power. It's bought a major stake in an offshore wind power project that would construct a new trunk line to deliver up to 6,000 megawatts of wind power to the East Coast from Virginia to New York.

Google (NASDAQ:GOOG) and Good Energies, a renewable energy investment firm, have agreed to take a 37.5 percent equity stake each in the project which will connect 6,000 megawatts of offshore wind turbines.

Google said on its official blog that the line can handle the equivalent of 60 percent of the wind energy that was installed in the entire country last year and enough to serve approximately 1.9 million households.

The initial investment in first phase construction alone works out to about $200 million each, Robert L. Mitchell, the CEO of Trans-Elect told the New York Times. The Maryland-based transmission-line company proposed the venture.

The project would be especially beneficial to New Jersey, where several projects are currently being considered. Designing and building an offshore power grid is more expensive than doing so onshore, but it circumvents the problems associated with building in someone's backyard (NIMBY rearing its ugly head).

It would go a long way to improving the electric grid on the East Coast and build redundancy as well as a means for connecting the proposed wind power projects with the consumers of that power.

Major Wind Power Projects Move Ahead At Last

The widely touted Cape Wind project has finally been awarded the federal leases that are necessary before construction on the project can begin. The project, located off Cape Cod, was long opposed by none other than former US Senator Ted Kennedy, but with his passing, the project has advanced to the point of construction.

The 28-year lease for 25 square miles in federal waters will cost Cape Wind an annual fee of $88,278 before construction and a 2 to 7 percent operating fee during production based on revenue from selling the energy.

“This is the beginning of a new era for our Nation in offshore energy production,” Salazar said in a speech to the American Wind Energy Association in Atlantic City where he was signing the lease this morning. “Responsibly developing this clean, renewable, domestic resource will stimulate investment in cutting-edge technology, create good, solid jobs for American workers, and promote our nation’s competitiveness, security, and prosperity.”

The expected announcement brings Cape Wind, which has undergone nine years of permitting, that much closer to construction. The state Department of Public Utilities is currently reviewing a deeply controversial contract between the utility and the developer to sell 50 percent of it energy at more than double the cost of current fossil fuel prices. They are expected to make a decision, widely expected to be an approval, by Nov. 15.

It was not immediately clear how the lease payment was arrived at – or how it compares to offshore oil and gas leases.

“We’re ready to roll up our sleeves and get to work building America’s first offshore wind farm that will create hundreds of jobs, increase our energy independence and promote a healthier and more hopeful energy future,” said Cape Wind President Jim Gordon.

Cape Wind, about five miles from the closest Cape Cod shore, is expected to produce the equivalent of up to 75 percent of the electricity demand for the Cape and Islands. Salazar gave the project final federal approval in April.

This may help spur the approval of similar projects off New Jersey's coast.

Meanwhile, major companies are looking to get into the wind power business including
Northrup Grumman. The major aerospace and naval shipbuilder is getting into the wind power game after signing a deal with a Spanish company to build an offshore wind turbine. They have the experience necessary to build major structures offshore that are capable of withstanding the forces of nature typically encountered offshore, so this is a good fit and will help create jobs.

Opponents to land-based wind power facilities have plenty of fodder in thwarting construction of projects. Besides the typical NIMBY mentality, some are pointing to studies claiming that wind power projects can affect local weather patterns. Much more frequently, the opposition is based on the noise made by the blades cutting through the air. Some projects have restrictions on when they can operate, reducing their efficiencies and output.

The net result of land-based opposition will be an increased cost associated with construction offshore, and increased costs for running transmission lines to the offshore projects, but once these sites are built, they will provide a renewable source of electricity.

Britain Opens Up World's Largest Offshore Wind Power Facility

The video only begins to convey the size and scope of the Thanet wind farm project, and it's just a fraction of the size of another proposed British project that would hope to produce a gigawatt of power (nearly four times the size of the current project).

The Thanet project is hoped to produce 300MW of power, and cost roughly $1 billion. There are critics of the project complaining that you can see the wind turbines from the shore, even though the closest turbines are more than seven miles offshore.

Each turbine is nearly as tall as a 40-story building and the blades are at least 65 feet above the water for clearance with vessels. No turbine is closer than 1,600 feet to another and the entire "farm" covers an area of 22 square miles.

Up to 341 turbines will be installed over the next four years.

With Thursday's opening, which tops a 91-turbine farm off Denmark, Britain now has more offshore wind capacity than the rest of the world combined.

"We are in a unique position to become a world leader in this industry," British Energy and Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne said in a statement before he attended the grand opening. "We are an island nation and I firmly believe we should be harnessing our wind, wave and tidal resources to the maximum."

Britain now gets three percent of its electricity from renewables but aims to get 15 percent by 2020. As part of that, the government this year awarded licenses to wind farm developers in a program that could deliver up to 32 gigawatts of generation capacity and require investment of more than $117 billion.

Critics of the $1.4 billion wind farm include some nearby residents who object to the sight of the giant towers, some visible from shore. The farm starts about seven miles from shore.

Environmental groups tend to back wind power as long as projects are not in areas of significant bird flight paths.

The new wind farm met that standard. It's an "important stride forward," said Craig Bennett of the British chapter of Friends of the Earth.

The cost rises exponentially the further offshore these turbines are sited - and that affects the economic viability of these projects. NIMBY is dominating the argument - and that means higher costs for all.

The complaints about offshore wind farms extend to opposition for siting them in the US as well. New Jersey has more than 100 miles of coastline and there's usually a steady wind, which means it's optimal for wind power generation. Yet, local opposition to siting the wind farms too close to shore has meant that plans to build wind power farms have to take the opposition into account. It also drives up the costs, despite the fact that the wind power facilities are not the blight that opponents make it out to be.

Note too that the British project highlights the environmentalist complaints and obstacles to the New Jersey project. Proposed New Jersey offshore wind farms are all along the Northeast flyway - a major flyway for migratory birds.

Power Generations Runs Into Transmission Troubles

It is a difficult enough task to site new power generating facilities, even wind and solar powered facilities. But that isn't even half the task.

There's the problem of transmitting that power to where it is needed.

Wind and solar powered facilities are often quite far from where the power is consumed, and that requires high power transmission lines. Opposition to siting those power lines means that there are days when you can have power to transmit but can't because of insufficient capacity in the network.

It's a situation that must change, and soon.

President Barack Obama has made the promotion of renewables central to his administration. A 2008 Department of Energy study found that the United States could, in theory, get 20 percent of its electricity from wind by 2030. Right now, however, that figure is less than 2 percent nationally. In Denmark, by contrast, about 20 percent of the electricity supply comes from wind.

In Texas, wind accounts for 6 percent of the electricity on the grid. But after a decade of rampant growth, wind is running into a significant constraint: There are too few transmission lines to carry the power. The wind turbines have mostly gone up in the western part of the state — hundreds of miles from the big cities in central and eastern Texas that need the power. The result is that on windy days, some turbines must shut down because there are not enough wires to transport the electricity they produce.

Lack of transmission is a national problem, especially for wind, which is often generated far from population centers. “The ability to site and build transmission is emerging as one of the highest risks facing the electric industry over the next 10 years,” according to a report last year from the North American Electric Reliability Corp., an industry group that sets operating standards for the grid.

Europe, similarly concerned, is hoping to build transmission lines under the North Sea, which would provide new ways to move electricity generated by offshore wind turbines and other renewable energy sources.

In Texas, state officials have moved aggressively to remedy the transmission deficiency. In 2008 regulators approved a $5 billion network of wires, which ultimately will stretch more than 2,300 miles, or 3,700 kilometers, around the state. The regulators are determining, one by one, exactly where each line will go. Construction on the first of the lines should start this autumn.

Unlike other states, Texas has a stand-alone power grid, making it easier to plan and site transmission lines. That effort has brought praise from renewable-energy advocates around the United States. The Texas process helped inspire a similar initiative in California, said V. John White, executive director of the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies, which is based in California. Mr. White said efforts there focused on supporting solar and geothermal power, as well as wind, and included more input from environmentalists.

But even in Texas — a state long accustomed to oil pipelines and other energy infrastructure — opposition to the transmission lines is mounting. Many landowners do not want to surrender their land to high-voltage power lines, even though they would be paid to do so. “The meters on the attorneys are running,” said Robert Weatherford, the president of Save Our Scenic Hill Country Environment, one of several groups fighting to keep two proposed power lines out of a scenic patch of central Texas, with partial success so far.

Besides transmission, Texas is grappling with other wind-related issues. One is cost. Long-term wholesale contracts for Texas wind power remain about twice as costly as generation from coal and nuclear plants, according to Michael E. Webber, the associate director of the Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Texas in Austin.

Texas is in a better position than most states because the state's transmission network is stand-alone, and even here the situation is extremely tough. The problems are magnified in places like the New York metro area because of population density, energy demands, and a lack of power generating capacity within the region.

NIMBY is preventing the construction of power lines, and some groups contend that the power lines would simply allow cheaper coal and oil plants to power needs locally rather than enable the alternative energy projects proposed within New Jersey. That argument falls flat when one views the opposition to siting any new power generating facilities - even offshore wind power projects if they're too close to shore (and therefore increase the costs for those projects even more).

New Jersey is also considering using brownfields as solar power generating facilities. That's an idea that makes tremendous sense, especially for landfills that have limited alternative uses. The problem for those facilities is hooking them up to an overburdened grid to ensure that the power flows to where it is needed.

Northern New Jersey Moving Ahead With Wind Power Projects

Bayonne New Jersey and the Port Authority are moving ahead with the installation of wind power generators around New York harbor.

The Port Authority’s proposed project at Port Jersey on the border of Bayonne and Jersey City would be similar, in appearance and purpose, to a wind farm that was built at a sewage-treatment plant in Atlantic City five years ago. The authority is seeking suggestions from companies that might be interested in managing the project on how to set up the turbines. Mr. Baroni said it could be operating by 2013.

When the winds are high, the five turbines would produce as much as 7.5 megawatts — enough to run at least 2,000 homes, he said. The authority plans to use the power generated to operate the container port there, then to feed the surplus energy into the local power grid, offsetting some of the authority’s consumption elsewhere.

“This is a commitment the Port Authority is making to reduce our carbon footprint and be better neighbors,” Mr. Baroni said. “It will allow us to both save money and also be good for the environment. Somebody’s got to go first, and it’s going to be us.”

But the City of Bayonne may tap the wind quicker. Construction of a 262-foot-tall turbine has already begun at a plant operated by the city’s Municipal Utilities Authority. That $5.6 million tower, which would be the biggest wind turbine in New Jersey outside of Atlantic City, is expected to start producing more than enough energy to power the plant by September. The city plans to sell the excess power, saving at least $150,000 a year, said Stephen J. Gallo, executive director of the utilities authority.

“It will be iconic,” Mr. Gallo said. “It will be the first windmill in New York Harbor. You’ll be able to see it from anywhere on the water.”

Both projects in Bayonne would help New Jersey achieve its stated goal of developing 200 megawatts of wind energy onshore by 2020. The state’s energy master plan also calls for producing 3,000 megawatts of wind energy offshore within 10 years.

None of these projects are in the multi-megawatt range, but they are going to be sufficient to power sewage pumping stations, Port Authority properties, and small operations around New York harbor.

They're also moving ahead faster than New York City is, despite Mayor Bloomberg's intention to build wind power turbines where land was available.

The fact that the wind turbines will be situated along New Jersey's waterfront means that they will be a very visible reminder of the technology and may lead other localities to consider their implementation.

Of course, there are still people opposed to such projects because of claims of noise and zoning restrictions (see Wayne, New Jersey for such shortsightedness).

Also, the construction of the wind power turbines on those properties circumvents problems with running new transmission lines and avoids the costs of building those facilities offshore in deeper water. That also means that those projects will break even much sooner - making the economic case for their implementation.

New Jersey Adopts An On Time Budget

New Jersey beat the July 1 deadline and enacted a $29.4 billion budget that largely conforms to the proposal outlined by Gov. Chris Christie. Spending was reduced - both the state spending and the federal component.

Christie's budget rejected major tax increases and cut 2.2 percent of state spending — or 8.6 percent including federal funds — from Corzine’s final budget. It marked a big milestone for the rookie governor, who campaigned on a platform of cutting spending and shrinking state government after a decade of Democratic control.

The budget cuts hit programs big and small, from the state’s largest expense — $10.3 billion in local school aid — to items such as the $7.5 million anti-smoking program, which will get nothing. Economic development grants have been curtailed, the Public Advocate Office was disassembled and the State Police will go without a new recruit class for another year.

Christie sliced $848 million from property tax rebates — which he said he’d cut as a last resort — and eliminated rebates for renters, while shirking a $3.1 billion pension-fund payment, ensuring next year’s required payment will be even bigger.

The failure to properly fund the pensions is an ongoing problem, and the only way the state could have fully funded the pension funds this year would have been to take on additional debt, or increase taxes to cover those costs. That simply was unsupportable.

Moreover, the pensions themselves are unsupportable and continue to drain state tax coffers even as the legislature tries to lard up benefits for state workers. And it isn't just the state workers pensions that are a problem. Local municipalities also have larded up the benefits over the years and the bill has come due. They can't afford the benefits they provide and taxpayers can't afford the tax hikes to support this.

The property tax rebates were a shell game - using one tax hike to cover for another, and it was doomed to failure from the outset. Christie's predecessor Jon Corzine enacted the rebates with much fanfare, but not only did it result in a higher sales tax, but property taxes continued rising above the so-called cap of 3.9%. Corzine then reduced the rebate because sales tax revenues dropped while maintaining the rebate, which drained state revenues from other sources and showed the folly of using one tax to pay for another's impact.

Christie wants to enact a constitutional cap of 2.5%, while the legislature wants a 2.9% Swiss-cheese cap that has so many loopholes so as to make the cap virtually useless - the same problem that dogged the 3.9% cap. Eliminating the rebates eliminated the spending for that program, but there is much spending that has to be cut.

This year's budget simply holds the line on spending from last year to this year and acknowledges the elimination of federal stimulus money to close the state's deficit.

Next year, the job will be to further reduce spending and continue working towards a benefits package that the state can afford.

UPDATE:
Gov. Christie is also expected to sign a wind power bill that would provide incentives for wind power manufacturers and to spur the development of wind power facilities in the state that make economic sense. The Board of Public Utilities would have oversight capabilities and a $100 million fund to see development opportunities.

The "Offshore Wind Economic Development Act," is intended to help the state meet the mandate of its Energy Master Plan, which calls for the development of 3,000 megawatts of offshore wind by 2020.

The program will be administered by the Board of Public Utilities and will require that projects make economic sense for N.J. The states of Virginia and Kentucky recently rejected wind farm proposals because they were deemed too expensive.

The Senate passed the bill earlier in the day by a vote of 27 to 10. The Assembly approved the legislation by 71 to 6 with 1 abstention. It will now go to Gov. Chris Christie to be signed into law.

New Jersey Offshore Wind Farm Study Moves Forward

New Jersey's offshore wind power project wont happen for at least another two years, because we first need a 2-year study to tell us whether it is even feasible to do this project and whether it would adversely affect the local ecology.

It is the beginning of a two-year wind and whale study for what may end up being the nation’s first offshore wind farm, where pylon-mounted turbines perched high above the waves, driven by huge, aerodynamic blades spinning freely to catch the wind, are expected to generate enough power one day to light up thousands of homes.

New Jersey is in a race to have the first offshore wind-generated power project, and the state just might beat Massachusetts, where U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar last week announced the approval of a 130-turbine wind farm in Nantucket Sound. That project, under review for nine years, continues to be threatened by lawsuits.

The issue has taken on renewed urgency as the ongoing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, which threatens wildlife and beaches along the Louisiana and Florida coastline, has dampened enthusiasm for offshore drilling. On Friday, a group of New Jersey lawmakers called for a moratorium on oil exploration off parts of the Atlantic Coast, and urged the federal government to speed up the permitting process for offshore wind farms.

The shore of the Garden State slopes to a shallow continental sea shelf — perfect for locating turbines — and at least four sites are under study. Three are in federal waters as far as 20 miles from shore. A fourth, the focus of the research being conducted out of Atlantic City, is in state waters much closer to land.

The technology of harnessing energy from the wind harkens back to the iconic windmills of Holland, updated by modern materials. Conical towers are typically anchored to the seabed, rising above the ocean, where a nacelle on top houses a generator spun by helicopter-like rotors. The electricity produced is then brought ashore through underwater cables to land-based substations for distribution.

Environmentalists Who Don't Care About the Environment

This week is chock full of news on the environmental front, particularly where environmentalists don't care about the environment either. They're too busy opposing wind farms, or buying up (or building) massive mansions on the coast that far outstrip their needs.

In the case of the Cape Wind project, the environmentalists and local opponents demanded and got a reduction in the number of turbines from 170 down to 130 (and I predict that the number will drop further due to continuing opposition). Here's what the Cape Wind project will do when it is eventually built:

The project is a big win for Siemens who will supply 130 3.6 MW towers, outbidding GE, Vestas, and other competitors. Siemens has already sold over 1,000 of these large off-shore turbines. The Cape Wind facility will generate a maximum electric output of 468 megawatts with an average anticipated output of 182 megawatts. At average expected production, Cape Wind could produce enough energy to power more than 200,000 homes in Massachusetts, or charge 200,000 electric cars.

So, if we had 170 instead of 130 turbines, we'd have another 144MW in power (40x3.6), and an average of 238MW (1.4MW average production x 170 turbines) instead of 182MW . Tell me again how the opposition is helping the environment?

Since each megawatt of power can provide energy to roughly 1,000 homes, that's at least another 56,000 homes that have to obtain power from other sources (primarily coal and natural gas), rather than the wind power project.

Considering that air quality remains a serious issue, blocking the wind power project (along with nuclear power and other alternative energy projects) means that the air quality will continue to worse than it should be. In fact, Massachusetts gets failing grades across the board for air quality for ozone, and a mixed bag on particulates.

It boils down to "do as they say, but don't do as they do" and NIMBY (not in my backyard).

After Nine Years, Feds Finally Approve Cape Wind Project

The headline tells you all you need to know about the laborious and labyrinthine regulatory process to bring wind power projects to fruition. It's taken the better part of a decade for the project to win federal approval, but that doesn't mean that the project will move forward anytime soon.

The approval of the 130-turbine farm gives a significant boost to the nascent offshore wind industry in the United States, which has lagged far behind Europe and China in harnessing the strong and steady power of ocean breezes to provide electricity to homes and businesses.

With Gov. Deval Patrick standing beside him, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced at a news conference at the Massachusetts Statehouse that the government had approved a permit for Cape Wind Associates, a private venture, to build the farm.

“I am approving the Cape Wind project,” Mr. Salazar said. “This will be the first of many projects up and down the Atlantic coast.”

The Cape Wind turbines would lie in Nantucket Sound, about five miles from the nearest shoreline, and cover 24 square miles, roughly the size of Manhattan. The tip of the highest blade of each turbine would reach 440 feet above the water.

But the project is hardly shovel ready. Several regulatory hurdles remain, and opponents have vowed to go to court, potentially stalling Cape Wind for several more years.

The Cape Wind project has been a matter of fierce contention for years, splitting politicians and environmental groups. While some environmentalists are prepared to go to court to stop the project, other major groups, including the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, support it.

NIMBY stands in the way of building these clean power projects, and some environmentalists are still standing by the notion that the project will mar the scenery, harm wildlife, or do other environmental damage. The main reason that these wind power projects are being pushed offshore is because doing so would minimize opposition to wind power turbines located near housing or businesses - NIMBY - yet doing so significantly increases the costs for such projects.

New Jersey has several projects making their way through regulatory hurdles, and one of the key studies looked at siting the wind turbines at various distances from shore - the further out to see, the more support the project got.

We're well past time to pursue these kinds of projects, but they aren't without a downside that isn't entirely apparent at first blush. The turbines require all manner of rare earth elements in significant quantities, and there's a race on to corner the market on finding the mother lode. China has been at the forefront of this race, making it incumbent for researchers to find other deposits around the world that also happen to be in politically stable regions.

Why Power Infrastructure Wont Improve Anytime Soon

It always seems to boil down to not in my backyard. NIMBY.

PSE&G is trying to build a transmission line through parts of New Jersey, and local communities were going to get reimbursed by the company. Many refused to take the money because of opposition elsewhere along the planned route.

When the state Board of Public Utilities again takes up the issue of PSE&G’s proposed North Jersey power line project this week, the room will be filled with adversaries, many of whom refused a recent utility company financial offer that could have silenced them.

"Settlement’’ offers were made this month by PSE&G to 15 towns in Morris, Sussex, Warren and Essex counties along the proposed route of a 45-mile, $750 million high-voltage line upgrade. The utility offered cash payments and reimbursements of hundreds of thousands of dollars apiece to pay to mitigate some of the impacts of the work to be done.

Opponents labeled the offers "bribes’’ to cash-strapped towns to quash opposition. PSE&G termed them a "fair and equitable way to address some concerns towns had with the project.’’

Officials in towns that got offers for money to hire extra police and safety officers, replace trees, repair property damage and other items, said they came with conditions, including dropping opposition to the project and not publicly commenting on it.

Stillwater, Hopatcong and Sparta accepted $392,000, $300,000 and $205,000 respectively.

Thirteen others declined, citing opposition to the project, or saying they did not have time to process offers that required a quick response. Included were Andover Township, Boonton Township, Byram, East Hanover, Fredon, Hardwick, Jefferson, Kinnelon, Montville, Parsippany, Rockaway Township and Roseland.

The transmission lines are part of critical upgrades to the region's power distribution system. Yet, these communities are opposed to the power lines why exactly? Some say it's a property value and safety question.

New towers would be built along an existing tower route, causing minimal environmental impact, according to the utilities.

Project opponents, however, say the line would harm the environment, make people living near the line ill, and bring power from "dirty’’ coal-burning plants through New Jersey solely to benefit out-of-state power needs and to generate profits.

So, this isn't along a new right of way, but additional towers along an existing route, but the opponents claim that the power could come from coal-powered plants within New Jersey to power out-of-state needs? How about building nuclear power plants as President Obama and even former New Jersey Governor Corzine proposed to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and the related emissions? That would eliminate the emissions issues and provide a far more reliable and clean energy source that would help make electric cars more feasible.

At the same time, across the country in Minnesota, a wind power turbine manufacturer has got a whole lot of trouble. The state's municipal power association bought a bunch of wind turbines on the promise that they would work in the harsh cold environment of a Minnesota winter.

They didn't.

They froze up and the solution is to use natural gas heaters to warm up the lubricants so that they can actually lubricate and let the wind turbines spin. That reduces the efficiencies of the wind turbines and reduces their power output for half the year.

The association could have saved itself a bunch of trouble by buying test turbines and seeing whether the company could fulfill its promises, but it again shows the problems facing wind power even where people want them. It is an extremely fickle technology and if opponents thwart placement in areas that are favorable to their use, wind power will remain a fringe source of power and reliance on other power sources will be necessary.

Brookhaven Solar Power Project Opposed By Environmental Groups

Which is it? Do you want clean renewable energy or do you want to save the trees? That's the issue facing folks on Long Island where Brookhaven National Lab is pondering the construction of a 32mw solar power system, which would require cutting down 150 acres of trees.

Those trees are part of the Long Island pine barrens, and existing environmental and zoning rules protect Long Island pine barrens. The lab is not bound by those rules but generally complies with them.

The energy company BP Solar wants to build the equivalent of a 32-megawatt generator, enough to power 4,500 homes.

The U.S. Department of Energy, which operates the lab, will host the clean-energy project in exchange for research opportunities.

Richard Amper of the Long Island Pine Barrens Society says clearing about 150 acres of trees would undercut the project's environmental goals.

This is a project that was proposed by Gov. Paterson last year. In fact, he was proposing a slightly larger project sufficient to power 6,500 homes and not the 4,500 homes in today's news report. Other reports actually have the footprint for the solar collectors at 200 acres, but I think the discrepancies may be because there are several providers involved, not just BP Solar.

Yet, the project is seeing environmentalists opposed to clean/renewable energy sources because of their environmental impacts, and they're using all measures at their disposal to prevent and/or limit construction of such projects.

This once again highlights the amount of land necessary to build solar and wind power projects of any substantial size. It would take 150 acres to build a 32mw project, while down the road, the Shoreham nuclear power plant never got commissioned despite $6 billion spent on the project would have provided 820mw on 450 acres (comparison to show the amount of land needed for wind power versus that needed for nuclear power). To build a wind or solar power facility comparable to what would have been produced at Shoreham, it would take 3843.75 acres. The footprint necessary for wind or solar power is vastly larger than necessary for nuclear (or coal or oil or natural gas). Nuclear power is capable of providing much greater energy per acre needed for the facility than wind or solar; a figure that must be included when contemplating siting needs and whether a given project is actually beneficial to the environment.

Native American Tribes Hoping to Thwart Cape Wind Power Project

First, there was former Senator Ted Kennedy who thought that the Cape Wind project would ruin his views and fishing grounds off Cape Code. Now, we've got two Native American tribes lodging protests to prevent the construction of the controversial wind power project.

Known as Cape Wind, the project is the nation’s first planned offshore wind farm and would cover 24 square miles in the sound, an area roughly the size of Manhattan. The park service decision came in response to a request from two Massachusetts Indian tribes, who said the 130 proposed wind turbines would thwart their spiritual ritual of greeting the sunrise, which requires unobstructed views across the sound, and disturb ancestral burial grounds.

The tribes — the Mashpee Wampanoag of Cape Cod and the Aquinnah Wampanoag of Martha’s Vineyard — sought the listing last fall, shortly before a final federal decision on the project was expected. The project has been in the works since 2001 and is strongly supported by Gov. Deval Patrick.

The decision by the National Park Service did not kill the Cape Wind plan, but it erected new hurdles by requiring more negotiations and, possibly, changes to the project, like moving it. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar set a deadline of March 1 for the tribes and the project’s developer, Energy Management Inc., to reach a compromise.

If they do not — a distinct possibility given the acrimony surrounding the project — Mr. Salazar can decide the project’s future himself after seeking suggestions from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, an independent group. But even if Mr. Salazar lets the project move forward, the park service finding could help the tribes and opponents build a legal case against it.

Cedric Cromwell, chairman of the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe, said the decision confirmed “what the Wampanoag people have known for thousands of years: that Nantucket Sound has significant archaeological, historic and cultural values and is sacred to our people.”

Others said the finding was surprising because Nantucket Sound, which encompasses more than 500 square miles, is by far the largest body of water ever found eligible for listing on the national historic register. Other eligible bodies of water have included Walden Pond in Massachusetts, which covers about 60 acres, and Zuni Salt Lake in New Mexico, which is about 6,500 feet across, said Jeffrey Olson, a spokesman for the park service.

“The decision is without precedent in terms of implicating many square miles of what is, legally speaking, the high seas,” said Ian A. Bowles, the Massachusetts secretary of energy and environmental affairs. “But as a procedural matter, it’s a good thing a decision was reached, and the secretary is getting personally involved to get it over the finish line.”

A spokeswoman for Mr. Salazar said he planned to meet next week with representatives of the tribes and the developer in hopes of speeding a resolution.

The park service decision comes at a time when Mr. Cromwell’s tribe, which won federal recognition in 2007, is hoping to build a casino.

President Obama has championed wind energy during his first year in office, though he has not publicly taken sides in the Cape Wind battle. In addition to the tribes, the project’s opponents include homeowners and boaters on Cape Cod, who say it would hurt wildlife, fishing and tourism and spoil the beauty of Nantucket Sound. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, whose family compound in Hyannis Port looks out on the proposed wind farm site, was the project’s most powerful opponent until his death last August.

Why exactly has the President been silent on the matter? Simple. Kennedy was one of his staunchest supporters, and Obama's victory in 2008 was a personal victory for Kennedy who saw the liberal wing retake control of the Democratic party over the moderate Clintonite wing. There's no way that Obama was going to undermine efforts by Kennedy in Kennedy's backyard.

If the environmentalists are truly serious about doing something about producing alternative energy sources, this wind power project should get built without further delays. Yet, it appears that politics trumps whatever science says on the matter, and that NIMBY still reigns supreme. The efforts to turn the waters off Cape Cod into a protected sanctuary are little different than California Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein's efforts to turn vast swaths of the Mojave Desert into a National Monument to thwart the construction of a bunch of large scale wind and solar power energy facilities.