Here in New Jersey, the administration is conducting a series of studies on the feasibility and the environmental and economic impacts "to push for ward with an offshore wind project," according to a spokesman for Gov. Jon Corzine. The governor's energy policy calls for 20 percent of the state's electricity to be wind- or solar- generated by 2020, and 80 percent by 2050. ...But we encourage Gov. Corzine to take a cautious approach and make sure that the environmental and economic questions are answered before we allow the giant windmills to sprout up along our coast.

California's power shortage confirms that all of the hoopla over wind energy's credentials as a clean and renewable source of electricity is undercut by the reality of its unreliability. During an extremely hot week in August, when air conditioners were cranked up and the state was on the brink of rolling blackouts, how much help did the state get from its beloved 2,500 megawatts of wind power? Only 4 percent of its capacity, according to the California Independent System Operator, which is responsible for the state's electricity grid. Southern California Edison's 2,200 megawatts of wind capacity generated only 45 megawatts. In other words, wind energy works great — except when you need air conditioning.

Legitimate concerns about the administration of New Jersey's Clean Energy Program have been raised and must be addressed.

No effective U.S. program to reduce the environmental harm done by conventional energy sources can be created without assigning a major role to nukes.

Wind power is advocated as a clean, renewable energy source. We have no problem with that. But we'd prefer that it be harnessed elsewhere. The potential harm to the ecosystem and tourism should be reason enough to scrap the test project.

The state shouldn't allow companies to build hundreds of windmills off the coast without first studying their effects on tourism, anglers and wildlife. There's no bigger part of New Jersey's multi-billion dollar tourism industry than the shore.