NJ Wind Farm Approved

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Chotu

Well, at least things do seem to be self regulating actually. Many nations are in population decline right now. People don’t want to have kids anymore. Naturally. Who would have thought our species had that kind of regulation? Luckily it appears we do.

According to forecasts, the world will record further growth in population, until 2080*.
However, despite these predictions, some countries are expected to shrink in population size. The countries that are likely to register a decline in population size are mainly located in or near Eastern Europe, except Japan and Cuba.
From 2020 to 2050, the highest drop in population, 22.5%, will be recorded in Bulgaria. Lithuania follows with a 22.1% projected decline for the same period, and Latvia ranks third with 21.6%.

➥ https://www.developmentaid.org/api/f...of_results.pdf

➥ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ran...g-populations/

* As for the population growth rate, on a global level, this has slowed down over time, reaching its slowest rate, 1%, in 2020, compared to 1950. However, estimates show that, despite this deceleration, the global population could increase, to about 8.5 billion, by 2030, 9.7 billion, by 2050, and 10.4 billion, by 2080.

[Chotu]

Originally Posted by GordMay

According to forecasts, the world will record further growth in population, until 2080*.
However, despite these predictions, some countries are expected to shrink in population size. The countries that are likely to register a decline in population size are mainly located in or near Eastern Europe, except Japan and Cuba.
From 2020 to 2050, the highest drop in population, 22.5%, will be recorded in Bulgaria. Lithuania follows with a 22.1% projected decline for the same period, and Latvia ranks third with 21.6%.

➥ https://www.developmentaid.org/api/f...of_results.pdf

➥ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ran...g-populations/

* As for the population growth rate, on a global level, this has slowed down over time, reaching its slowest rate, 1%, in 2020, compared to 1950. However, estimates show that, despite this deceleration, the global population could increase, to about 8.5 billion, by 2030, 9.7 billion, by 2050, and 10.4 billion, by 2080.

Right. That’s true. Good data. I forgot India is helping us along.

[GordMay]

India’s population has doubled, growing by more than 1 billion people, since 1950, [the year the UN population data begins], and will, under the UN’s “medium variant”* projection, continue to slowly increase until 2064, when it will peak at 1.7 billion people.
India’s population will decline, beginning as early as 2047, and fall to around 1 billion people, by 2100.

* Definition of “Medium Variant Projection Scenario
➥ https://population.un.org/wpp/Defini...tionScenarios/


More than half of the projected increase in global population, up to 2050 will be concentrated in just eight countries: the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, and the United Republic of Tanzania.

Countries of sub-Saharan Africa are expected to continue growing through 2100, and to contribute more than half of the global population increase, anticipated through 2050.

The 46 least developed countries (LDCs) are among the world’s fastest-growing. Many are projected to double in population, between 2022 and 2050, putting additional pressure on resources, and posing challenges to the achievement of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The share of the global population aged 65 years or above is projected to rise, from 10 per cent in 2022, to 16 per cent in 2050.
By 2050, the number of persons aged 65 years or over worldwide is projected to be more than twice the number of children under age 5, and about the same as the number of children under age 12.

The populations of 61 countries [or areas] are projected to decrease by 1 per cent or more, between 2022 and 2050, owing to sustained low levels of fertility and, in some cases, elevated rates of emigration.
Total fertility has fallen markedly in recent decades, for many countries. Today, two-thirds of the global population lives in a country, where fertility is below 2.1 births per woman, roughly the level required for zero growth
in the long run. for a population with low mortality.
Among countries with at least half a million people, the largest relative reductions in population size, until 2050, with losses of 20 per cent or more, are expected to occur in Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Serbia and Ukraine.

World Population Prospects 2022
➥ https://www.un.org/development/desa/...of_results.pdf

[bgallinger]

Originally Posted by Ryban

This mostly seems like good news to me. Other than the navigational hazard, what are reasons people are unhappy about this?

1) The cost/Kwh is higher than gas turbine power
2) Wind turbines are an ugly blight on the landscape
3) The lifespan is approximately 20 years
4) Nobody knows what to do with the used fiberglass blades
5) The only big winner is the manufacturer (eg. Mitsubishi)
6) The turbines kill birds especially in migratory bird flight paths
7) Wind speeds are not constant, so power generation will be deficient at times
8) Alternative power sources (eg gas turbine) must be kept running on standby.
9) When excess power is made, there is no way to store it (as in a battery). Therefore, the power must be sold on the open market and most often at lower prices than production costs. The taxpayer foots the difference.
10) From the CD Howe Institute in Canada: June 15, 2021 - Taxpayer subsidies of electricity in Ontario have risen to staggering levels, says a new report from the C.D. Howe Institute.
In “Power Surge: The Causes of (and Solutions to) Ontario’s Electricity Price Rise Since 2006” authors Benjamin Dachis and Joel Balyk find that rate subsidies to offset high electricity prices are not sustainable and do not address the cause of Ontario’s high system costs.

In light of these findings, the Green Energy Act in Ontario has been repealed

[glenn.225]

Originally Posted by bgallinger

1) The cost/Kwh is higher than gas turbine power

2) Wind turbines are an ugly blight on the landscape

3) The lifespan is approximately 20 years

4) Nobody knows what to do with the used fiberglass blades

5) The only big winner is the manufacturer (eg. Mitsubishi)

6) The turbines kill birds especially in migratory bird flight paths

7) Wind speeds are not constant, so power generation will be deficient at times

8) Alternative power sources (eg gas turbine) must be kept running on standby.

9) When excess power is made, there is no way to store it (as in a battery). Therefore, the power must be sold on the open market and most often at lower prices than production costs. The taxpayer foots the difference.

10) From the CD Howe Institute in Canada: June 15, 2021 - Taxpayer subsidies of electricity in Ontario have risen to staggering levels, says a new report from the C.D. Howe Institute.

In “Power Surge: The Causes of (and Solutions to) Ontario’s Electricity Price Rise Since 2006” authors Benjamin Dachis and Joel Balyk find that rate subsidies to offset high electricity prices are not sustainable and do not address the cause of Ontario’s high system costs.



In light of these findings, the Green Energy Act in Ontario has been repealed

Yeah, we just need to build the cheapest coal burning plants with no emission controls. So that you get cheap power.

[Wotname]

CF is a community of individuals who share a common interest in boating and cruising. Please think before you post and keep your comments limited to the topic at hand which in this thread is the navigational and cruising aspects of the proposed NJ Wind Farm. Other aspects, especially political / geopolitical posts will have a short lifespan...

[sailorboy1]

So of you must really live in a glass boat and should stop throwing rocks!

[Chotu]

I saw the prototypes today

[flightlead404]

Originally Posted by Chotu

However the ocean is the one last place we have that doesn’t have a lot of human marking all over it. It’s fairly pure still. It would be very unfortunate to ruin that as well as we have ruined everything else.

Well, giant garbage patches aside....

[CaptNemoO2]

Originally Posted by ABJ87

Look where it is. Cape May to NYC your likely inside of it. Cape May to Block your outside of it.

Looks positioned to avoid most marine traffic.

Might not be that easy... Little boats and big boats will now have to occupy the same space, or go far out of the way.

[Chotu]

Originally Posted by CaptNemoO2

Might not be that easy... Little boats and big boats will now have to occupy the same space, or go far out of the way.


Attachment 277990

Wow. So much worse than I thought.

At the very minimum, they should put a small platform on each of them that is reachable by ladder when you are in the water just in case of emergencies at sea. Or more likely, someone running right into them.

[GordMay]

Offshore Wind Farms Can Interfere with Ship Radar and Navigation
More about ➥ https://www.nationalacademies.org/ne...ays-new-report

Report Highlights ➥ https://nap.nationalacademies.org/re...highlights.pdf

“Wind Turbine Generator Impacts to Marine Vessel Radar” ~ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2022)
➥ https://nap.nationalacademies.org/ca...e-vessel-radar

[thomm225]

I saw the Virginia Wind Farm Support Boat just yesterday coming into Little Creek.

It can cruise along in good weather at 22 -24 knots so can be at the site 27 miles offshore in a bit over an hour.

https://professionalmariner.com/blou...ore-wind-farm/

[Ryban]

Most of the arguments against offshore wind presented in this thread are pretty disingenuous and talking points of oil lobbyist, and most of them apply (to a greater magnitude) to other forms of power generation that these turbines seek to replace -- especially when one considers the lifecycle costs and economic impact of continuing down the road of ecological destruction.
https://www.americanprogress.org/art...isinformation/

I accept they are a navigational hazard and will be mildly annoying features to avoid in the coastal waters they are impacting. That said, I'd support a similar project if it were proposed offshore here in California as well, and navigate accordingly.

I think the reason a lot of us cruise is to be able to explore the beauty of our planet, and the diversity of life it has to offer. I think this is a small price to pay if it helps keep that a reality.

[Wotname]

11 posts of the last 19 posts have been deleted as they were not germane to the cruising or navigational aspects of the thread topic.

Thread closed.