ADVERTISEMENT

OT: Coming to a beach near you in NJ and NY

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's worse than I thought. We're pretty much going to destroy the ocean floor. It will be the end of ocean fishing in NJ.
I tried to look into the group who wrote the article but couldn’t find anything about them.

Do you a link that gives us background about the authors of the article?

I also have a question for those against the windmills do you feel the same about fracking because I am sure there are similar articles about how bad fracking is?

Or power lines or nuclear plants etc etc.
 
Last edited:
Funny, I don't remember any of you people complaining about offshore oil platforms.

So am I to assume that folks like @T2Kplus20 are in favor of discontinuing all offshore drilling & recovery?
No problem with it.

But just like how sausage is made…I don’t want to see it.

Was watching a profile on Julia Louis Dreyfus (Letterman Netflix show?) and while they were walking along a California beach I couldn’t believe how many offshore oil platforms you could see. Awful.👎
 
Last edited:
Funny, I don't remember any of you people complaining about offshore oil platforms.

So am I to assume that folks like @T2Kplus20 are in favor of discontinuing all offshore drilling & recovery?

Many people are saying there's oil under Montgomery, NJ. I say we start drilling there, bigly.
 
Many people are saying there's oil under Montgomery, NJ. I say we start drilling there, bigly.

Sadly, there's nothing of value either under or in Montgomery Twp. Everything was stripped away by the advance of the Wisconsinan glaciation, 100,000 years ago.

Imagine living someplace that was conquered by an ice sheet. Sad! Totally beta.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NotInRHouse
I tried to look into the group who wrote the article but couldn’t find anything about them.

Do you a link that gives us background about the authors of the article?

I also have a question for those against the windmills do you feel the same about fracking because I am sure there are similar articles about how bad fracking is?

Or power lines or nuclear plants etc etc.
I’m more opposed to the farce it will be beyond anything else. Fracking and nuclear are proven winners. Windmills went away 200 years ago for a reason
 
Sadly, there's nothing of value either under or in Montgomery Twp. Everything was stripped away by the advance of the Wisconsinan glaciation, 100,000 years ago.

Imagine living someplace that was conquered by an ice sheet. Sad! Totally beta.
Are we also an expert on the ice sheets too?😉
 
  • Haha
Reactions: T2Kplus20
I’m more opposed to the farce it will be beyond anything else. Fracking and nuclear are proven winners. Windmills went away 200 years ago for a reason
But like anything else (hydro, nuclear, solar, fossil), it’s an option.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tom1944
I’m more opposed to the farce it will be beyond anything else. Fracking and nuclear are proven winners. Windmills went away 200 years ago for a reason

Fracking isn't a "proven winner". Fracking is, in fact, quite bad.

Also, "windmills went away 200 years ago" is an odd take. Early windmills provided mechanical energy to turn things like grinding wheels and well pumps. They "went away" because electric motors assumed those tasks as regions became electrified.

Using windmills to turn generators is actually an excellent use case.
 
I’m more opposed to the farce it will be beyond anything else. Fracking and nuclear are proven winners. Windmills went away 200 years ago for a reason

Most induced earthquakes are not directly caused by hydraulic fracturing (fracking). The recent increase in earthquakes in the central United States is primarily caused by disposal of waste fluids that are a byproduct of oil production.

Wastewater disposal wells typically operate for longer durations and inject much more fluid than is injected during the hydraulic fracturing process, making them more likely to induce earthquakes. In Oklahoma, which has the most induced earthquakes in the United States, 2% of earthquakes can be linked to hydraulic fracturing operations. Given the high rate of seismicity in Oklahoma, this means that there are still many earthquakes induced by hydraulic fracturing. The remaining earthquakes are induced by wastewater disposal. The largest earthquake known to be induced by hydraulic fracturing in the United States was a magnitude 4.0 earthquake that occurred in 2018 in Texas.

Was Fracking discussed on this board already?
 

Most induced earthquakes are not directly caused by hydraulic fracturing (fracking). The recent increase in earthquakes in the central United States is primarily caused by disposal of waste fluids that are a byproduct of oil production.

Wastewater disposal wells typically operate for longer durations and inject much more fluid than is injected during the hydraulic fracturing process, making them more likely to induce earthquakes. In Oklahoma, which has the most induced earthquakes in the United States, 2% of earthquakes can be linked to hydraulic fracturing operations. Given the high rate of seismicity in Oklahoma, this means that there are still many earthquakes induced by hydraulic fracturing. The remaining earthquakes are induced by wastewater disposal. The largest earthquake known to be induced by hydraulic fracturing in the United States was a magnitude 4.0 earthquake that occurred in 2018 in Texas.

Was Fracking discussed on this board already?

Anything that alters crust viscosity is likely a bad thing.

It was assumed, not all that long ago, that the middle of the U.S., essentially everything that lies within the Mississippi watershed, was a geologically stable craton - one big giant piece of crustal block essentially unchanged for 4 billion years.

This has, over the last couple of decades, been proven to be utter nonsense. Where it was previously believed that tectonic plates where solid, it's now understood that the plates are, themselves, amalgamations of previously created and destroyed crustal blocks. Over the course of geological time they break apart and fuse together, constantly.

The reason there's oil in places like Oklahoma is because the middle of the country was a shallow, tropical sea during the early Cretaceous - roughly 150 million years ago. The marine algae deposits were buried by shale and sandstone created by the down-wasting of the Rockies and the oil eventually migrated up through those formations to become, in varying degrees, recoverable.

The point is that no petroleum formation resides in what you would call "really stable rock". Injecting fluids into that rock, either from wastewater disposal or hydraulic fracturing, is going to destabilize it for certain. Destabilized bedrock will exacerbate local faulting - which was previously believed to not be a thing, but which we now know is very, very much a thing.
 
I tried to look into the group who wrote the article but couldn’t find anything about them.

Do you a link that gives us background about the authors of the article?

I also have a question for those against the windmills do you feel the same about fracking because I am sure there are similar articles about how bad fracking is?

Or power lines or nuclear plants etc etc.

There are similar articles about fracking and I do have a concern that it poisons the water supply. However, I'm not against nuclear power or power lines. Nuclear is the only thing that's going to save this planet.
 

Whales and wind emerged in the headlines in January after a press conferenceJan. 9 by two groups, Clean Ocean Action and Protect Our Coast New Jersey. They blamed the so-called "unprecedented" discovery of six dead whales along New Jersey and New York coasts on early-stage geotechnical surveys mapping the sea-floor for wind farms.

They advanced a festering concern that sound beams used in such surveys could harm nearby whales. Conservation groups and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management generally believe that's nonsense, in part because the type of sound used for wind turbine placement is much weaker than the stronger signals regularly used for other purposes such as oil and gas exploration.
Then the mayors' letter made national news with its call for a moratorium on all offshore wind activity until federal and state agencies determine there's no connection to recent whale deaths.

The cause has also been taken up by Fox News personality Tucker Carlson, who has aired a series of segments in which he called wind turbines DDT for whales.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BossNJ

Whales and wind emerged in the headlines in January after a press conferenceJan. 9 by two groups, Clean Ocean Action and Protect Our Coast New Jersey. They blamed the so-called "unprecedented" discovery of six dead whales along New Jersey and New York coasts on early-stage geotechnical surveys mapping the sea-floor for wind farms.

They advanced a festering concern that sound beams used in such surveys could harm nearby whales. Conservation groups and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management generally believe that's nonsense, in part because the type of sound used for wind turbine placement is much weaker than the stronger signals regularly used for other purposes such as oil and gas exploration.
Then the mayors' letter made national news with its call for a moratorium on all offshore wind activity until federal and state agencies determine there's no connection to recent whale deaths.

The cause has also been taken up by Fox News personality Tucker Carlson, who has aired a series of segments in which he called wind turbines DDT for whales.

Why is the relative strength of signals used for oil and gas exploration relevant to this discussion? They have not been used and the mayors are not advocating oil and gas exploration. I don't have the knowledge to say whether or not the beams cause harm, but this tying in to oil and gas exploration strike me PC attempt to change the subject.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: CERU00 and fsg2
Every source of energy has an environmental impact seems we are selective on some and willing to ignore others
 
Every source of energy has an environmental impact seems we are selective on some and willing to ignore others
Not me.

Throughout this thread and others I’ve said try them all.

Just not a total fan of being told what’s the best for me.
 
Why is the relative strength of signals used for oil and gas exploration relevant to this discussion? They have not been used and the mayors are not advocating oil and gas exploration. I don't have the knowledge to say whether or not the beams cause harm, but this tying in to oil and gas exploration strike me PC attempt to change the subject.
No, it only means that they use stronger signals for oil exploration than for the wind turbine placement. There would be more dead whales from oil exploration but no one noticed it.

The people pushing the idea that wind turbine placement is killing whales are the people living in Ocean City like the OP. They just dont want to see the wind mills. Our discussion doesn't matter since this board has no real affect on the decision of placement of the wind mills. I think the decision has already been made.
 
Not me.

Throughout this thread and others I’ve said try them all.

Just not a total fan of being told what’s the best for me.
And so have I

I will say if I lived at the shore and my choices were oil rigs, nuclear power plant, high tension wires or windmills off the coast I would favor windmills over the others.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Proud NJ Sports Fan
And so have I

I will say if I lived at the shore and my choices were oil rigs, nuclear power plant, high tension wires or windmills off the coast I would favor windmills over the others.
1. Nuke Power
2. Nuke Power
3. Nuke Power

That should be our focus (if we really want clean energy independence).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knight177lb
While I agree that we need nuclear energy I still would rather look at windmills off the coast than a nuclear plant
Expand the existing NJ nuke plants and you won't need any other options. They already provide almost 50% of what NJ needs.
 
Expand the existing NJ nuke plants and you won't need any other options. They already provide almost 50% of what NJ needs.
I agree but there will be justification for other sources for the other 50%

Windmills or another nuclear plant off the coast of Spring Harbor
What do you prefer
 
Expand the existing NJ nuke plants and you won't need any other options. They already provide almost 50% of what NJ needs.

Oyster Creek is closed. Salem / Hope Creek is all that's left.

Nuclear power accounted for 44% of NJ's needs in 2021, but some of that originated outside the state, as NJ is a net consumer of electricity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T2Kplus20
Oh and fracking is just marvelous

Just ask the people in Oklahoma how much they love becoming the earthquake capital of America


Though I guess the earthquakes are more pleasant than poisoned water.

But most fun is sitting in an armchair in NJ simping for the oil company billionaires, knowing their worst excesses are limited in reaching you because the state government you detest doesn't roll over for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BossNJ and fsg2
When did they start drilling off of NJ?

I was speaking generically.

The wind farm antagonists are pretending that there's some great environmental cataclysm associated with wind turbines, but those same people have never once posted about the dangers of oil rigs, in the Gulf or elsewhere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NotInRHouse
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT