|
|
Clean Energy Reports
Search
•
RSS Feed
Executive Summary
As the new home of NJPIRG's environmental work, Environment New Jersey can be contacted regarding this report.
In the coming years, New Jersey will need to make some difficult choices about
its electricity sources.
The state’s electricity demand is expected to grow by at least 14 percent over
the next decade. Efficiency measures can mitigate this demand growth, but additional
power
generation facilities will also be necessary—both to satisfy this increased
demand and to replace power from dirty or unsafe plants as they are retired.
Generating power by using fossil fuels or nuclear power imposes unbearable costs
on our environment, our health, and our economy. Instead of increasing our dependence
on dangerous, polluting sources such as coal, natural gas and nuclear power
plants, the state must tap into clean, sustainable energy resources such as
wind power.
Global Warming
Global warming, caused by the release of greenhouse gases from burning fossil
fuels, is the most severe impact of our current energy path. If emissions of
greenhouse gases are not dramatically curtailed, life in New Jersey will be
significantly altered within the next century.
- Within the next 50 years, the ocean will rise one to four feet along the Atlantic
coast. A 2.3-foot rise in ocean levels would threaten up to 433 square miles
of coastal land in New Jersey with increased flooding. The impacts of global
warming are likely to be most noticeable along the shore, through lost shoreline,
saltwater intrusion in fresh water supplies, an increase in extreme weather
events like storms and flooding, and resulting damage to coastal properties.
- Global warming will cause significant disruption of ecosystems and thus wildlife
habitats. Changing vegetation will alter wildlife population size, density,
and behavior. Shifts in habitat may force as many as 31 species of birds to
change their ranges to exclude New Jersey.
- Warming is already occurring: temperatures in the past century have risen
by an average of one degree.
- In 2001, New Jersey’s coal, oil, and gas-fired power plants released an estimated
19 million metric tons of carbon dioxide—emissions equivalent to those from
half of the cars on New Jersey’s roads.
Air and Water Pollution
Fossil fuels burned to produce electricity also contribute to New Jersey’s and
the region’s air and water pollution problems, threatening the health of residents
and impacting
our quality of life.
• During 2003, the eight-hour health standard for ground-level ozone (“smog”)
was exceeded 79 times in New Jersey, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
has designated all of New Jersey as violating health standards for ozone. Ground-level
ozone, which is partially caused by emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), can
lead to
asthma, bronchitis, increased susceptibility to bacterial infections and other
respiratory problems.
• Acid rain, the result of NOx and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, kills forests
and damages aquatic ecosystems. In much of New Jersey, 10 to 20 percent of surface
waters are acidic due to acid rain. Over 90 percent of the streams in New Jersey’s
Pine Barrens are chronically acidic (the highest rate in the nation), killing
resident trout.
• Mercury from coal-fired power plants has contaminated the state’s lakes and
streams, putting children at risk of nuerological damage and prompting a statewide
advisory on fish consumption.
Nuclear Hazards
Nuclear power plants are another environmental crisis in the making. New Jersey’s
aging plants generate tons of radioactive waste that will remain lethal for
centuries.
• Exposure to radiation from nuclear waste can cause serious health problems,
including cancer, developmental disorders, hereditary disease, accelerated aging,
and immune system damage.
• New Jersey’s four nuclear power plants have generated and currently store
1,688 metric tons of spent fuel. These facilities have no safe storage options
for their waste and aging equipment at the plants increases the odds of an accident.
• An accident involving radioactive material—whether due to mishandling, equipment
fatigue or a terrorist act—could endanger thousands of people, including the
growing population of Ocean and Salem counties and the greater Philadelphia
metro area.
• Evacuation plans are woefully inadequate.
Wildlife and Habitat Destruction
Statistics about wildlife deaths related to different energy sources indicate
that wind power, a renewable energy source, has a more modest impact on wildlife
and habitat
than do coal, natural gas, or nuclear power.
• Mining for coal or for uranium destroys vast areas of habitat. A single mine
can strip up to ten square miles, disrupting individual animals and in some
cases entire species. Coal mining in Tennessee threatens the habitat of the
Cerulean warbler, a species that is in precipitous decline.
• Nuclear power plants disrupt aquatic habitat. New Jersey’s Salem Nuclear Generating
Station draws water from the Delaware River for cooling purposes, killing 3
billion fish annually.
• One study of wind turbines indicates an average of 2.3 avian fatalities at
each turbine each year, for a total of 10,000 to 40,000 birds killed per year
nationwide. As more wind farms are erected in the United States, new research
continues to discover ways to design and site these facilities to minimize wildlife
disruption from wind farms.
Wind: The Least Damaging Choice
Wind has great potential for generating electricity that we have only begun
to tap. While concerns about wind power’s impacts on vistas and birds and more
recently on bats have slowed its development, the impacts are minor when compared
to the harm caused by the mining and burning of coal and natural gas, or by
nuclear power. Wind power does not contribute to global warming, and produces
no air pollution or wastes. For these reasons, wind power, in combination with
energy efficiency measures, constitutes one of the few sources with which to
reasonably meet New Jersey’s growing electricity demand.
Any specific wind project, whether onshore or offshore, will have impacts. A
permitting process should be put in place to examine impacts for ecological
significance. An appropriate wind project permitting process will allow decision
makers and the public to weigh the local impacts of a wind development against
the broader effects of alternative power sources.
The review process for any wind facility in New Jersey should include the following:
• Opportunities for participation from all involved constituencies.
• A comparison to potential impacts of traditional electricity production options,
to ensure that the consequences of coal, natural gas, or nuclear power are considered.
• Clear decision criteria established in advance: what factors will be considered,
what requirements a facility must meet regarding environmental and public health
impacts, and how those impacts will be evaluated (site studies, computer modeling,
or other methods).
• Independent review of the developer’s plans by technical experts who can effectively
assess impacts of the development.
• A timeline for the permitting process including interim steps and decision
points, so that developers can plan their project and the public can be made
aware of opportunities for comment.
• Post-construction monitoring of the turbines.
Because few wind power facilities have been constructed in coastal areas of
the East Coast of the United States and none yet offshore, there is some uncertainty
about
the potential impacts of such an installation. No permitting process will be
able to provide this data. Rather, the information will come from the first
few projects as they
are built and begin operating. In light of the relative environmental consequences
of the state’s current and future energy supply options, New Jersey should encourage
one or more wind facilities as test cases, and then apply the data gathered
from those developments to the review of future proposals.
|
